They all seemed to serve different purposes upon introduction, but after some vague point, each of the four cars pictured above turned into “Roaches of the Road”, a term if not coined by Curbside Classic commentators, it’s decidedly one of our signature ones to define cars that never die. May the odds be ever in your favorite roach’s favor.
Roach #1 : Ford Falcon (Introduced Fall of 1959, last produced in original form in 1991 in Argentina).
For our eldest roach, I know I’m going to endure a lot of heat for Picking the Falcon over the Valiant and other Mopar A-Bodies. I have a few reasons for doing so. The Falcon has seen somewhat of a Phoenix-like surge in popularity in recent years, in spite of the fact that it was introduced nearly 53 years ago. And that popularity has a lot to do with the fact that a few staples of Roachdom are apparent in its design: they’re hard to break (outside of early Australian ones), and when they break, they’re amazingly easy to fix.
Also, there wasn’t much modification done to the version sold in Argentina all the way through 1991 other than more modern head lamps, wheels and updated engines and suspension. In that international scheme of things, the other 1960s compact that saw an international life, the Valiant, diverged on different paths quite early. Anyways, what we got here is a very solid uni-body car with an assortment of Inline 6 and V8 engines, a good cross section of transmission availability,
and our only factory Convertible among the roaches. Also, given the fact that the Falcon was practically the parent of every uni-body Ford before the Fox Platform, and you might think we can fair and square declare it the King of the Roaches right now. But don’t act so fast….
Roach #2: Volvo 200 Series (Introduced Fall 1973, last produced May 1993)
Although technically just a refresh of the 100 Series cars introduced at the end of 1967, there seemed to be a decent character shift away from the 1 to 2 shift in 1974. For one the PRV-V6 powered cars don’t have such a prominent image compared to the 164 Series inline six. When’s the last time you’ve seen a 260 running?
But then a majority of these Swedish Stones came with one of Volvo’s ridiculously sturdy B-series engines in normally aspirated and particularly joyful turbo incarnations. And at the time they drove with a respectable purpose that wasn’t the skill of a number of competing, at least American, cars in the same price bracket.
And undeniably they’ve proven to be long lived, either due to the devotion of their owners or their innate goodness at being an appliance, or a decently healthy parts supply and mechanics that are willing to (overcharge) work on them for you.
Roach #3: Mercedes W123 Series (Introduced January 1976, last produced 1986)
I’m not going to play favorites since I currently drive this particular roach. Really. But among the roaches it probably played the most diverse role depending on where it was sold. The same 240D could be a drab durable taxi cab in the rest of the world yet have enough sparkle and snobbery to make a Cadillac Eldorado seem plebeian in Los Angeles.
It also has the most weird mix of sensibilities, with 4 wheel disc brakes soon to be accompanied by an Air Bag and ABS with recirculating ball power steering and miles of vacuum lines monitoring a number of power accessories. And again, in the US they were maddeningly expensive when new, as a 300TD estate would be a $75,000 car, price adjusted for inflation.
But they represent the last meticulously-overbuilt Benzes before increasing electronics creep made future Mercedes Benzes, especially the W126, harder to consider the one investment you can make in a car for a lifetime. Given that they still thrive all over the world (not so much for the far less popular 230 and 280 models) 35 years after they clogged the air with blue diesel smoke, they make a good candidate for best roach of all time. If they weren’t so damned expensive to fix when they do break…
Roach #4: General Motors FWD A-Bodies (Introduced September 1981, last produced 1996)
It’s worth noting that Consumer Guide didn’t recommend buying one of these as a Budget or Best Buy until the 1990 Model year. In other words, it took General Motors nine model years to make these roaches really worth buying. That’s almost as long as Roach #1 was on the US Market. And then it stuck around another six model years.
But for a number of reasons, from finally decent mechanicals, especially for the upper-echelon Cutlass Ciera and Century in the form of the short deck 3300 V6 and the pretty good 4T40 Hydra Matic, plus the ridiculously copious and cheap parts supply to allow owners to keep these things alive on a modest budget.
It also helps that of all the Roaches, they are the newest and have the adage of GM cars run bad longer than any other car runs at all on their side. And there was the promise of what the X Car promised to be underneath it all. They also, I believe, might be the roomiest of our roaches despite having the shortest wheelbase. Roomiest, but probably the second-least comfortable after the original Falcon.
So before I unleash the voting war and write-in candidates, I have to say I have love in my heart for each roach coach, given that I could have my own specialized or favorite version of each:
For Roach #1
All of our Roaches came as station wagons, but my favorite has to be the Falcon Squire. It helps that it was the only one available with a factory V8, and that the 1963 version wears the zaftig lines the best of the original body. I’d definitely take this one above.
For Roach #2
I’m sure there has to be one running or well preserved 265 Wagon out there right? And if the engine is too far gone, ironically, it’s not too hard to swap in a 302 Windsor crate motor.
For Roach #3
We technically had to wait for the W124 to get a factory convertible, but apparently there were a few W123 Coupes converted into droptops. Give me one with an unfettered M110 6 (I’ve learned to love that engine in my 280E) with a 4 speed stick. It would be the last ultimate European Convertible. It’s actually quite sad Benz didn’t bother with one for this generation of car. It’s quite beautiful.
For Roach #4
If I were to suffer…er live with our newest of roaches I might as well go for one of a few hundred of the early Hess & Eisenhardt Convertible conversions with the 3.8L V6 making 150hp for 1986. Sure it probably would rattle itself to bits, but it would be far more fun than a 1993 Value edition SL Sedan.
So vote your roach, or dissent. I know it’s coming.
Great candidates all. Yet, I will unabashedly show my bias and vote for the GM A-body. Its automotive comfort food.
For Roach 1: Looks good in station wagon and modernized forms.
For Roach 2:Willlast forever and still provide fun when turbo-equipped.
For Roach 3:The coupe is a timeless design.
For Roach 3:I still love the gadgets, toys, looks, and fun provided in the Pontiac 6000 STE.
Laurence, you have a knack for coming up with these horrible yet fabulous dilemmas. I started to whiff out a quick answer, then I thought about it. This is a tough choice. I too have some love for each of these platforms. On the GM version, I would choose a more realistically available Cutlass Cruiser wagon.
Hmmmm. My heart picks the Falcon. A very well styled car and the simplest of all. The downside is that given its age, it is a pre a/c car so would be a good daily driver for only 3 out of 4 seasons in the midwest. Also, its propensity to rust probably takes us to 2 out of 4 seasons.
The A body’s almost legendary rust resistance and its HVAC systems would make it a great winter and summer cruiser. So, I guess the practical choice for ownership would be the two Amerikaners.
Still, there is something about the Benz and the Volvo that is so appealing to me. A strippo 240D or a 240DL would make me feel pretty good about myself. There has to be all sorts of stuff written about the psychological effect on the driver as he looks out on that chrome 3 pointed star. Rats, now I am wavering again. A roach for the frugal or a roach for the guy who deserves just a bit more. Hmmmmmm.
Mercedes 123! Had an 81 245 GLT, with 265,000 on the clock, but the wiring harnes disintegrated, left me stranded one night. My 123 300D has 240,000 and I can take the battery out and throw in the street and drive across the country. I love them both however. Great post, thanks.
What, no C/H body roach love? I kid, I kid.
This is tough. I’ve owned two examples of the four cars listed above: a `90 Century Custom and a `89 Volvo 240 wagon.
I think I will stick with the Volvo, unless I could find a nice Century wagon.
My favorite roach: Toyota Corolla. Oh wait…that wasn’t a choice was it? My bad. 🙂
oh what might have been, if the rwd corollas hadn’t all rusted away…
I think I wanted to stick with cars that you could recognize the roots of from beginning to end (or current). The original 1968 Corolla has little to do with the current 2012 one for sale currently. You could pretty much do that with all 4 of the cars above.
Considering how hard I tried to kill my 1982 Celebrity (airborn A-body anyone?) but in the end could not (after the Iron Duke was rebuilt) I have to go A-body. Give me a Cutlass Ciera sedan from the very last year that I could get the 3300. Make it a loaded example with leather and a very A-body luggage rack on the trunk. In the right shade of metalic grey, just give me a radar detector and I should be pretty invisible to the cops while still being able to maintain highly illegal speeds.
I’ll go with the A-body as wonderful transportation for the terminally cheap. Having said that, what happened to the J-bodies? If anything, weren’t they on the market even longer?
But I frankly hate how those drive, so personal prejudice over those.
Laurence, if you did comment on the J bodies, you’d owe Geozinger a beer – or two…
Chevy Cavalier – “Cockroach of the Road”©
©Geozinger
If you remember correctly, the car that actually spawned the Cockroach of the Road was the X car. The car that the A bodies are based on. It’s kind of fitting that the A bodies get the Roach designation, as they are genetically related to the original Roaches…
The J bodies are a regional phenomenon; when I lived down South, they weren’t that popular. And I may be skewed in my observations, living in the upper Midwest and growing up in the shadow of Lordstown, I tend to see J’s everywhere.
@Laurence: If you get a GT or Z24 level J body, the driving experience isn’t bad at all. I’ll grant you one of the first or second gen 13″ wheeled cars are pretty lame, but most other direct competitors at that time were equally lame. By the time the 4th gens were around, particularly if they had the 15 or 16 inch wheel packages (indicating the better suspensions) they weren’t half bad. Certainly a match for the A bodies.
Blah, I just, can’t… shake the opinion of J’s as deadly sins. Like you take one bad element (of how badly they performed) and they improved that. And then the upper trim/brand levels with the better screwed together interiors went away. Call me crazy but the Cimmaron interior doesn’t look half bad to my eye.
I think the only thing I don’t like about the A bodies is the real limpness of the majority of their drivers seats. That’s not as an easy to match fix as throwing a decent set of shocks on them to make them dance well (as the 6000STE proved the platform could). I really like the A’s in a “if they weren’t all beat within an inch of their lives” I’d want one kind of way. Plus they’re super roomy for their size compared to the J’s (and the N’s that at times were more expensive than they were).
If you want to talk about THAT Roach (the J-Car) & catch photos of it, just come over here to the Great Lakes State of Michigan! We even have RUST-FREE first generation J-cars at your disposal!
Pun-laden J-car names with the word ROACH in them:
-The Chevrolet Cavalier-OACH
-The Pontiac Sun-ROACH
Where are these rust free first gen J-bodies that you speak of? (I’m in Michigan, too.) I can’t tell you the last time I saw a rust free first generation J-body, at least north of the Mason-Dixon line…
Not that I really want a first gen, to be honest. I prefer the 4th gens myself. But a 1986 Oldsmobile Firenza SX (mit 2.8 V6) would be an enticement… 🙂
Better J-body roach puns:
Chevrolet Roachalier
Pontiac Roachfire
I may actually change my Sunfire’s Fuelly handle to that. I kind of like it… Although I usually refer to my Sunfire as the Rustfire…
having had two of the four and very familiar with all of them, i feel qualified to vote on this one. my pick is the volvo 245 wagon with either leather or vinyl seats is the winner. i’ve come to the conclusion that it’s love that keeps old roaches running and nobody loves stained velour seats.
A-body wagon with 3300 V6 for the win!!
Great write up. Feel free to throw just about any Camry in there. Especially ones from the 90s. The are basically a continuation of the Ciera concept. Plain vanilla.
From this list, it’s gotta be the MB diesel for me. I know very little about what drivetrain options were available for Mercedes, but I’d prefer a wagon with a turbodiesel engine and a standard transmission. I think I read somewhere that the 300TD wagon with 5-cyl turbodiesel was only available with an automatic?
In the US only I think, but maybe I’m wrong. I’ve at least seen some of the grey market 300D ones here with a stick and a 230TE with a stick.
I wanted that convertible back in 1989 or so… they were all over the used car market in LA. I Never see them any more. Much like the Cutlass 90-95 – where did they all go?
Id Pick a Ciera… or a century T Ttype,
Lax, all those Cutlasses have gone to the Midwest where they will spend the end of their days as a daily driver.
A 1961 white Falcon Futura coupe with red interior and with the rare UK-sourced four speed manual (column shift).
Or/and: a 242 Turbo!
Wow, Paul, do I ever remember that model. It was the only Futura in our small town in the midwest, purchased new by a “secretary” in that exact color combination (but with Fordomatic). Very attractive bucket seats (same ones used in the Ford exhibit ride at the 62 Seattle World’s Fair) and little chrome console compartment. With the polka dot trimmed wheel covers and special Futura trim pieces on the rear fenders. Very special compared to the two new 1961 Falcons my Dad bought, one the deluxe trimmed four-door and the other a Plain Jane two-door.
Falcons were attractive cars with the exception of too small wheels. Very underpowered with the 85 HP engine (the 101 much better) and prone to rusting. They were ubiquitous in my midwestern childhood and way outsold the competition. I virtually never saw a Valiant and our neighbor’s 1960 Corvair was a rarity (though it was a favored and babied car that soldiered on for years and years, gas heater and rear engine traction very practical for the Great Lakes area). My Dad also later owned a Falcon Ranchero in red and white so I have to vote for it.
Yes, exactly. I should have added a picture. There was one in Iowa City on the way to school, and I loved gazing at its interior. Of course, there was a very rare 1960 Monza coupe, in white and with blue interior on the way too, and I gad perpetual inner battles as to their qualities.
It is interesting that the designers of the Futura eschewed use of the body molding chrome trim of the deluxe model (but did include the chrome around the window frames) and added three-piece rear fender trim somewhat similar to that used later on the 62 Thunderbird. Definitely looks cleaner this way. I wish the one in the picture had the original wheels and special covers. They looked good with the new narrow band whitewalls of that year.
With on those Paul, surprised? Theres an endless supply of upgrade parts just driving about here for the Falcon and my BIL is a parts man at the biggest Ford dealership in Australasia here in Auckland. The Volvo Aussie is littered with broken ones and my brother lives in Melbourne so he could mail anything I cant find here. As for A bodies pass unknown out here and the Benz still very expensive to repair should anything break though the cars themselves have little value here.
I worked for Alamo Car Rental in the mid 90’s. The Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century were the full sized car offering. Every one had a very bad shake in the front end, customers hated them, employees hated them. I was t-boned one day on my way home in one by a Honda Civic. It really hurt when my head hit the b pillar. No fond memories here.
I was just going by a 1988 Celebrity 2.8 we owned about a decade ago. It Had Pep. But I can See that B Pillar being a bad thing to hit on impact.
I Do Like The Idea of a Falcon Futura Convertible. I Think I’d like mine in some sort of Turquoise. You Could Probably still get it with that red upholstery we love so much.
I’ve owned 4 GM A-bodies so I’ll give the nod in that direction, but I’d own every car on this list if I could.
The MB diesel, hands down. My own personal roach coach, I drove the W123 300CD coupe, a 1983 turbodiesel model, for fifteen years, couldn’t kill the thing. Midnight blue with a Palomino leather interior, stunning combo, always got thumbs up gestures wherever I went. Paid $33,000 out the door new, finally sold it with 250,000 miles on it for $3500 when the auto transmission was failing. For all the money I spent during those years on unending maintenance, I could have bought a second one. Man, let me tell you about expensive to fix when it broke. You’d go in for a simple oil change, and come out with a $1,000 bill. But, it’s the car you love to hate. Sturdy, rugged, solid, practically bulletproof, it carried me dependably all over Southern California. And being a glutton for punishment, I replaced it with a used ’91 300C coupe, and, when that one reached the 125,000 mile mark, I went for a ’99 320CLK coupe. Twenty-three years of Benzism, finally got a clue and divested myself of these money pits. But they were fabulous cars, loved the Teutonic experience, always felt like a million bucks in them. Wouldn’t do it again, though!
You couldn’t kill the thing, but it cost you a fortune to keep on the road? Sounds like you should have put it out of its misery instead! What kind of repairs were done at these $1000 oil changes?
I’m approaching this from the viewpoint that was asked another time. What would you want to be stuck with if you had to maintain it yourself and drive it for 20 years. The MB with a diesel and the falcon with the small six are 1 and 1a in either order. The volvo could qualify but I had bad experiences there.
If the falcon had a diesel or if I were allowed to install an old Nissan 4 cyl diesel there would be no 1a. Simplicity rules.
…except that this formula applies: Engine swap [does not equal] simplicity.
LD28 fits anything I know a guy has a LD28 in a 48 Bonus and his 85 Falcon ute
Falcon or Volvo for me! Speaking of engine swaps, I was going to install a marine 4.3 Chev V6/700R4 in my 245 but ended up selling the engine…still think it would be a great swap, however.
A few years back I saw a MB 240D that was getting a Buick 3.8 & 700 trans installed (from a Commodore). You could run it on LPG and beat the diesel running costs easily.
Give me a W123…literally, because keeping an old MBZ running is like sending a kid through grad school. Here’s a picture of my beloved W126, a 1989 300SE; long may she reign.
Having owned one for a while and spent way too much on maintaining it (even with learning to do some of my own work), I’d still go with the W123 if I could find a clean, rust-free one (and living in SoCal, that might be workable). Second would be the “brick” Volvo.
I’d like to cast a write-in vote, though, for the Subaru Legacy platform, particularly the Outback wagon. Mine is reliable enough to be boring–all it does is run, and is a comfortable yet inconspicuous freeway commuter. And like the other roaches, people seem to keep them forever.
Our ’94 Legacy wagon just keeps going and going. In any weather, on any road. Lily loves it. Even the AC is still cold. They’re everywhere around here.
I’ve said before that if my employer (which has offices in LA, Portland, and the Seattle area) ever wants to transfer me to the Northwest, I’ll fit right in, since I already have the requisite Subaru. I’ve even scoped out a couple of Subaru indie mechanics in PDX.
On the East Side, Superior is superior. http://www.fixmysuby.com/
I think I’ve been by the one on Sandy, actually (it’s on my way between the airport and the office).
I currently use Suby Specialties in Monrovia, CA, if anyone in LA needs a rec. 😉
70s tennis babes want only the most luxuriously landau’d and alloy’d of FoMoRoaches.
Doh! Image.
Coincidentally, our local cherry Ranchero appeared with a camper yesterday.
In this list I would go for the Ciera, mostly because I had one for a while. It was an SL with 3.3 litre and it cost me all of $700. The interior was red velour and it had one of the best instrument panels I have ever seen, just two big dials and four smaller ones. It was a 1990 and by this time the cars were really well sorted out and you know, they really weren’t that big at all. The 3.3 made great torque, too. Drove it for the best part of a year and sold it for, get this, $700. I did have the front brakes done by my buddy, a twelve pack plus parts. Calipers, pads and rotors were like $110 taxes in. Try that on your Bimmer.
Really, however, the ultimate roach is such a perfect roach it has escaped mention here: the ubiquitous Toyota Corolla. It is the biggest selling car in history. I don’t know how many people had these as their first cars it it has to be a lot. When I look out the window in my rather high density neighbourhood, I can’t help but see one. Seems like a third of the cars on the streets here are Corollas, from about 1990 to 2012. They are bought by people who think as much about their cars as they do about their fridge magnets. Really, they make a great urban car because they are reasonably roomy, reliable, easy to see out if and cheap to run. It seems that ever new immigrant immediately gets one upon landing (showing how smart they are, really). Most are purchased off lease to make them even cheaper. There are scads of the available used; a 2010 with factory warranty and 1.9% Toyota financing can be had for $10,000 around here. That is really cheap.
And just like the venerable A Body Roach, everybody loves to hate the Cor-roach-la. Car magazines slam it because its insufficient g-forces and a shifter that does not fall readily to hand and its low figure 8 times. The Cor-roach-la owner doesn’t remotely give a damn anyway. They buy the cars and drive them.
The present Co-roach-la has been around since 2004 (as a 2005 model), eight years, an eon in today’s market. The car has hardly changed a bit. Yesterday, I walked by a Toyota store and out front was a 2012 Co-roach-la CE, the one they have sold zillions of in Canada, with automatic transmission (with only four speeds) a/c and remote entry. The car was silver, with cranker windowns and had plastic wheel covers, like 99% of all Cor-roach-las. This is the exact package they started in 2004. That car goes for less than $20,000 on the road with insurance and leases at $253 a month. That is value.
Thus the car mags pan the Cor-roach-la and Toyota sells loads of them.
I agree with that, the Corolla is a roach it should be on there to round out the nationality of the list, though I have never liked it, too small for my tastes. Which is more of a roach for Toyota? The Corolla or the Camry?
Remember the A-body had ultra cheap roach status towards then end of its line up, whem Olds was selling new Cieras wtith a V6 and all the power options for like $13K in 1993-1996 or so?
Carmine, gasoline prices in Soviet Canuckistan have always been higher than in the USA, hence the most popular models are always one step down from the USA. So, you have the Camry as number one and we have the Cor-roach-la.
Coroachlla would be the international road roach they are everywhere in every country petrol and diesel just chugging along as they were meant to.
Cor roach la: Excellent nom de plume. Because those things were awful. I sold them back in the 90’s. It was an easy upsell to a Camry if they had good credit. Or we could swing down to a Tercel, as they were close in size.
I’m probably the wrong demo for the cars, but they were hard riding, slow, evil oversteering little punishment boxes.
Truly cars for folks who view driving as an unavoidable chore. They deserve the car they bought.
The question I have to pose would be for the MBophiles and the Volvophiles. If you are way overcharged for service and have to pay $1k for an oil change plus the stuff they find, how are you truly a roach. Roaches survive without life support.
It is sort of kin to comparing a living breathing person to something like the embalmed body of Lenin in Moscow.
I thought the MB Diesels and the Volvos (certainly not the diesel) were fairly trouble free. If the mechanics bill exceeds your house payment, I think they should be disqualified as roaches. Perhaps there is a better name. Oh, I don’t know, perhaps little hothouse flowers requiring frequent attention.
Sorry but I think the American and Japanese vehicles with the gas engines (certainly include the valiant and perhaps some others) are more deserving of the name. My Nissan Cube appears to be headed in that direction with almost 50k miles of rather intense neglect. Maybe in a couple years of mileage and neglect like this I will argue for canonization as a roach.
I agree that the MB does not count as a roach as you mentioned “routine maintenance” can sometime bite you for $1K enough to buy an A-body roach all day long. The Volvo I’m sort of torn on weather it qualifies or not some if it depends on which version a stripper 4cyl probably is but the loaded up, turbo or PRV machines probably isn’t.
I have to say that it helps being in regions where there’s more of certain roaches, The Bay Area is an enthusiast or devoted owners ground for both the W123 or 200 Series Volvo, to the point that it might skew my perspective (or from my Mechanic’s opinion, the Volvo’s are slightly more tedious and price expensive to work on).
I think that they do qualify as roaches as my most expensive repair bill so far for my 280E, for an admitted worn out water pump was $476, and it was more the labor intensity than the cost of the part. Which is above what an A body would probably run for a similar repair, but less than say a friend would dump into a 10-12 year old Camry or Accord for the price. I’ve also lucked out that the current W123 I drive was pretty well maintained, so the scary things like the vacuum lines, the harsh shifting automatic, or the solid lifter zero interference/replace that timing chain in advance stuff is well documented and I know when I need to attend to it.
But yeah, the 240D and 300D are the set it and forget it W123s, if you don’t mind the power locks eventually going out.
On that basis the XUD9 diesel engine from PSA in anything they run forever if given basic maintenance, DIY friendly great mileage and reasonable performance it was fitted to all sorts of cars Lada suzuki Fiat and of course Citroens and Peugeots thats what powers my Xsara the last year to use it.
The FWD GM A body was a 1/2 year intro, for winter/spring 1982. They weren’t ready yet in Sept 1981.
Anyway, my vote is for the 1993-97 Altima, many still chugging along here in rust belt. While other ‘Grunge era’ cars are gone.
I so wanted to buy a W123 Benz but Im afraid of the costly repairs. On this list however it’s my favorite of the bunch. A car I often see still lurking are the 1978-1987 GM G-bodies; mostly the Cutlass Supreme. Other than gassing it up they are relatively cheap to run.
Of the choices offered, I’d take a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible with 4-speed, red on red. That’d be as much fun to drive as a Mustang but much less common. Maybe not very roachlike, but then I don’t classify anything that costs as much to keep up as a Mercedes as a roach anyway.
Volvos and Mercedii don’t have to be expensive to repair, I ran both in the UK on very little money, and still run my 33 year old Volvo as my main car. The key is to work on them yourself and to change the poorly designed systems for better ones.
Mercedes are only roaches if they are diesels however. Petrol engines are good, but do tend to cost more to maintain. On a diesel, if you do the work yourself- changing oil, filters, occasional o-rings, brakes, gearbox oil etc it will keep going for little money.
I think this is why Mercs and Volvos are real roaches- they are bought by people who have had them before and know them front to back. Once you know everything about your car, you can fix it for cheap. Both Volvos and Mercedes are well designed cars with service parts in obvious places and bolts that are made of a better grade steel than others makes. However, if you drive it the way you do a Toyota, and take it to the main dealer for oil changes and servicing, you have the wrong car.
But to the question at hand- Volvos are the best roach for one reason- those bumpers will mean that your £500 Volvo won’t get written off from any accident under 25mph. The ability to survive the adjuster’s ‘total loss’ stamp is the key to Roachdom. * I suppose that a US spec Mercedes could also qualify on this regard, but the UK versions don’t have the same bumpers*
I’m a Ford guy but I pick the A-body. I had a 93 Buick Century 4 door with a 3.3 and a 4 speed auto as a beater/daily driver through college. Interior bits would randomly fall off and it didn’t feel as well screwed together as other cars I’ve driven but it was a tough cookie. It died after I changed the transmission fluid (something the previous owner had never done) and the trans lost 3rd and 4th gear. It lasted 15 years and 160K miles.
The key with the A-bodies is getting one with the Buick MPFI 3.3 V6. It’s virtually impossible to kill that engine. The 94 and up cars had the 3.1 “Chevy” V6 which has a propensity to eat intake gaskets.
I loved that 3.3 engine. It was a bit on the lumpy side but man, o man, it made really good low end torque and had no problems with intake manifold gaskets. Even had roller lifters!
Now that I mentioned it, in reply to Brian on the Valiant article, my write-in candidate is the first-generation (NA) 1990-96 Mazda Miata.
Simple, very well-built, a favorite to work on according to a recent *nik poll. Parts are widely available, and mileage is decent, I’m seeing mid-20s driving fast. Handling is great, the 1.6L twin-cam engine is sweet, the 5-speed is snik-snik. These cars just roll on and on, reliable daily transportation and maybe the most fun per dollar possible on four wheels. (Nice ones around here can still be found for $3-5K.)
I’m down with the 61 or 62 Falcon coupe, 6 cyl with a floor shifted 4 speed, but I would be tempted to resto-mod it. Replace the front suspension with a modern non assisted rack and pinion setup and the rear with a 4 link (numerous suppliers out there for this) and 4 wheel DB’s, an aluminum head and EFI (from Classic Inlines, Paul wrote about this outfit about a year ago) modern bucket seats, AC etc…
So now that I have about 20K into it I wonder why I wouldn’t just keep my ’01 Camry that is paid for????
But it would be cool and far less anonymous though 🙂
Saw a 63 Falcon wagon recently with 96 Falcon powertrain and brakes fuel injected V8 bolts right in suspension the lot
I don’t know what everyone else sees where they live but how can the 1990-93 Accords not be on this list? I am in Rhode Island and I see tons of these still on the road. In fact my father in law still drives a blue 1990 EX 4-dr! It is rotted out totally but he still loves it and it is still reliable. The next generation 1994-97 Accords are also all over the place. I know because I drive one! In fact, just the other day I saw 3 others at the same intersection that were the same color as mine – the oh so popular ‘Heather Mist’ silvery beige color. Mine is a 1996 LX 4-dr 5-speed with 207,000 miles on it and it drives like new. I still average 27 mpg with it all the time. I only paid $1600 for it three years ago – best car I have owned for cheap $$.
It’s the same reason I didn’t put the Camry on the list, although it can be said that both the Camry and Accord, underneath stayed pretty much the same car through a couple of restyles underneath, they were heavily modified in a lot of generational turnovers, to the point that both of them went from being compacts to midsized cars with each redesign.
One big key to roachdom to me is produced (with few improvements) in the same state-ish as it was at introduction. In that category I’d say the GM J-bodies are more roach-like than any Accord or Camry, or the current Corolla is the best example of an in production roach.
1. Volvo. 2. Falcon. 3. GM intermediate, 4, Benz (but only because they cost so damn much when they break).
My Dad bought a ’62 Falcon in 1979 after the second gas price spike. 170 straight six and three-on-the-tree. I thought it was the dorkiest car I’d ever seen and being an image-conscious teenager, I was embarrassed to be seen in it. Also, being a die-hard Chevy fan, having a Ford in our driveway was an abomination. He could have at least found a Chevy II (I would have loved a Corvair, but that was a non-starter). I dubbed the Falcon Frumpy Fred.
Over the years, I developed a respect for Frumpy Fred and even a bit of affection for him. I learned to drive a stick in Fred, and if you can handle a balky three-on-the-tree, anything else is a piece of cake. Once, I was late for work and drove Fred 80 MPH down the freeway, only to arrive and be greeted with the smell of burnt brake shoes. Seems I had left the parking brake on the whole time (there was no light on the dash). But he was no worse for wear. I figure that high speed jaunt either gave Fred a nervous breakdown or the ride of his life.
I wonder where all of the Chevy IIs went? The hardtops and convertibles probably all went to Super Chevy subscribers, but what about all of the 2 and 4 door sedans? Even in the midwest, I will still see an old Falcon somewhere, but cannot tell you the last ChevyII sighting.
I’m guessing the Falcon, with a two-year head start on the Chevy II, was produced in much greater numbers and hence a few more have survived. My grandmother’s 62 Chevy II with the 4 cylinder engine was a very good car and served her well for ten years but it eventually succumbed to the tin worm, as did most of the Falcons and just about every car from Detroit in that era that was driven on salted roads.
“I wonder where all of the Chevy IIs went?”
One is in my neighborhood – a ’71 or ’72 MY, I believe, a coupe, blue. I also saw one on the highway while driving home yesterday. Although those were simply “Novas” by then. The box Chevy II “twices” as we used to call them? Yeah, all gone.
The 170 was a good engine. The 144 not so much, very underpowered for the car’s weight. One of our 61s had the 144 and it self destructed within three years. I amazed to think of a 62 Falcon being purchased in 1979. Our 61’s, purchased new in the midwest, were both in the junkyard long before your Dad bought his car.
The 170 six seemed to give Fred sufficient power, and those cars were also light. This was in west Texas, so salted roads were not an issue.
king and queen of the roaches are the hillman hunter and peogot 404
Hillman Hunter was cross bred with the 504 in Iran they used the engine in their locally produced Peykan
Since I drive a Volvo 240 wagon, I guess you know where i stand, but really I would take the Benz if I could afford it.
I’m surprised no one nominated the box Panthers. At least around here they are still out on the road in significant numbers. Rarely does a day pass when I go more than a mile or two from home that I don’t see at least one on the road. As a percentage of sales I think they have the highest survival rate of any car from the 80’s.
1) They’re Huge 2) They’re Guzzlers
Of all full sized cars I would have nominated the GM H body cars, which 1) Aren’t too much bigger outside than our largest roaches and 2) turn in pretty good highway mileage. It’s decidedly the preferred big roach here in California.
Grandma’s 97 FWD H-Body LeSabre served her well for 150,000+ Miles until coolant leaks, tin worm, and useless brakes killed it last year. It was a nice Luxu-ROACH of a car.
What does size or fuel economy have to do with it? A roach is about a car you can’t kill.
While the boxes aren’t a fuel efficient as the aeros they are far from guzzlers. Depending on which box and which Falcon you have a box can get just as good or better MPG.
Since there are EPA fuel economy numbers for the later cars on your list here is a comparison.
1986 Crown Vic 5.0 4sp AT 16city, 24hwy, 19 combined
1986 190 2.3 4sp AT 190 18/21/19
1986 W124 300E 4sp AT t 16/20/18.
1985 300SDL 21/24/22
1986 240 (Volvo) 2.3 4sp AT 18/22/20
1986 Century 2.8 3sp AT 17/24/19
1986 Century 2.8 4sp AT 18/26/20
The only one that beats it by a significant margin is the diesel Mercedes but depending on the prices of diesel in your area that extra MPG is eaten up by the higher fuel price. In my area it historically averages 15% which would give you the same fuel cost per mile as a gasser getting 18/20/19
So no a box Panther isn’t a guzzler at least compared to the other roaches on your list that we have data for.
Maybe in the rest of the US Panthers of earlier vintages aren’t easy to kill, but those big ugly thirsty boxes in my experience never really got better than 15-16mpg and had autoboxes from hell. You only see pristine kept original ones by 80 year old church ladies around here with plastic seat covers.
If it isn’t a later one that was a police interceptor, you just don’t see them. They aren’t space efficient or manageable, and are a whole size class above more obvious roach candidates, like the Valiant, Corolla, Camry, etc.
Speaking from A-Body, Volvo and W123 ownership they all managed between 23-25mpg highway and are more manageable to drive in real world (where the world isn’t flat) conditions.
23-25 hwy is what the box panthers get in the real world in places where there are hills and are quite manageable to drive.
Yes the first AODs were problematic but by the mid 80’s they were quite reliable and will do 200K w/o a problem.
Maybe they all went away down there being used as taxis, I don’t know but as I said earlier around here I see at least one a day.
The only problem with these as roaches is that the tinworm has pretty well eradicated them from the midwest. There are a few scattered here and there, but they are nowhere near as common as the GM A bodies.
I vote for GM A-body first and Volvo second. I’m not sure about the Falcon, but MB last.
GM A-bodies just last forever and are incredibly cheap to repair and maintain. I bought one NEW in the last year of production just for its reliability and durability. I was 20. The thing was reliable and durable and we still have it, but it was not fun to drive in the least. It was/is fairly comfortable and roomy and feels well made and actually made out of metal, rather than bits of flimsy plastic (cough W bodies) In Mexico these came in a super stylish version called the “Cutlass Eurosport” with Leather buckets, fancy console, fancy wheels, nice body side skirts and trim . . . it was possible to turn one of these into a driver’s car. The last years just weren’t.
I briefly had a Volvo 240 that I bought to flip (successfully) and it turned out to be the easiest car to work on that I have ever seen. Apparently there are some things that deteriorate over time but very little and parts are cheap.
The Falcon might be nice but I have very little experience with anything that old and am terrified of carburetors.
Mercedes cars- – – part of the reason that these things last so long is that these things cost more than an under average house when they were new. At the moment I’m looking at a C/D from March 1980; the Mercedes 300TD is profiled and it cost 26,547. An Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham Diesel in the same issue, for the sake of comparison, cost $10,178, so the Mercedes cost more than 2 and a half times what an average car at the time cost. If you needed a $5000 repair on said Cutlass, said Cutlass is off to the boneyard; if you need a $5000 repair on said Mercedes, chances are you’d do it. People put more into fixing and maintaining the things. Another point in their favour is they were designed for horrible third world countries so had to be durable and easily fixed . . .
But I shouldn’t expect them to be cheap or easy to maintain nowadays. You do, at least in America, get that $1000 bill for something that shouldn’t break.
What great post! You should be writing articles here.
There was a similar Ciera model here, too, with leather buckets and FE3 suspension. I think it was called the Ciera International Edition. Even had a floor shifter. All in all pretty spiffy and I always liked to styling after they kiboshed the “formal” roofline.
What else has been in production virtually unchanged forever and lasts unexpectedly forever?
The Beetle.
The Citroen 2CV.
Oooh, the Chevy Astro went almost as long as the A-Body, didn’t it? And those are fairly unkillable.
A body with 3.3 Buick motor. Preferably a Ciera wagon. Wouldn’t touch the Benz or the Volvo here in the States, and the Falcon is two years older than I am. Nice and simple, but as much of a Ford family as we were, I couldn’t get excited about them.
“they’re hard to break (outside of early Australian ones)”
The first Australian Falcons were identical to American ones, they soon gained stronger Fairlane ball joints then Sprint/convertible underbody spec strengthening by about 1964.
I think I’d have to go for a manual 4cyl Volvo wagon but if allowed to do a few mods to make it handle, stop & steer better I’d be tempted by a 250ci powered XP Falcon similar to what a guy out here built. Take one early 80’s Falcon & stick it all in the 65, his was an auto so I’m not sure if a T5 goes in the small trans tunnel easily enough though.
Where is the 4.0L powered Jeep Cherokee (aka XJ)? Built from 1984 to 2001 – 17 years! I see them everywhere.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/97-01_Jeep_Cherokee.jpg
What about the Jeep Cherokee? Built from 1984-2001. They’re everywhere. That 4.0L inline-6 is considered un-breakable!
-John
I would say that the W-bodies are starting to creep into roach status too, the first generations went almost a decade with little changes, there are still a ton of the 1997 and up re-designed W’s and the Impala is still creeping around for another year.
I think the next roach of the road when that A’s start to fade away would be the MalibuGrandAmCutlassAlero midsize cars.
I have my money on the ovoid/de-ovoided Taurus. They’re ridiculously common, ridiculously cheap to buy and own and seem to go forever. All those traits and the plain vanilla styling makes them ripe for A body successors in roachdom IMO.
The ovoid Taurus seems to be disappering around here, I think it is because they are worth so little because they are so ugly. The de-ovoided version on the other hand I think will be around for some time and qualify as roaches because they don’t die no matter how much they are abused and how much maintenance is differed. The other key is that if there is a mission critical failure they are cheap and easy to fix.
Roach #4.
The Falcons roach era was before my time and the Merc and Volvo aren’t really that common around here. A bodies on the other hand? Summer/winter they’re everywhere. I see more of them on a daily basis than brand new(or recent) GM products and they all look battered and filthy (something my personal roach status requires, I DON’T like finding roaches in my house just as I don’t like seeing that car. The other cars on the list I genuinely like).
Never owned a Falcon. I would have loved to have done so but 1960’s vehicles still carry a stiff price premium in my neck of the woods.
I’ve owned probably around two dozen 240’s. The other site has an article about a ‘Bluebird’ I saved from the proverbial grave. They do have character but all things being equal, I think a 940 Turbo wagon would be a far better roach than any of the 240’s.
Mercedes… got I hate those old high dollar bastards.They always have something wrong with them no matter how much money or expertise you throw at them once you get past the decade mark. Great seats, wonderful engines, beautiful interiors. But I would personally favor the W116’s over the W123’s. They are far more friendly for the DIY’er.
A bodies are definite roaches, My choice would be a 90’s wagon with the wood treatment, 3.3 Liter, and fold down third seats. Perfect fisherman’s car and far more user friendly than anything else mentioned save for the Volvo.
None of these cars are in the same time zone as these three vehicles.
1992 – 1996 Toyota Camry
1990 – 1993 Honda Accord
1988 – 1992 Toyota Corolla
Some would throw in a Civic or a Legacy into this mix, and that’s fine. I do wonder if the Corolla was built for a longer time period than the American generation… hmmm… wait a sec….
The Corolla turns out to be sold from 1987 (Japan) thru 1994 (Australia) on a worldwide basis. A few years away from Laurence’s well developed criteria (all of which I agree on) so I guess we’ll shelve it for now.
Great article! Thanks for writing it.
My personal subjective favorite is the W123, diesel only, of course. However, I still see a LOT of Cieras (even in rust-prone New England) and a reasonable number of 240s (mostly wagons). Either of these is probably much easier to keep on the road than a vintage Benz. The Falcon was too far before my time.
A “cockroach” that I would like to nominate is the 1988-1998 Chevy/GMC full-size truck and their 1992-2000 SUV derivatives. They blend into the background very well, yet countless small business owners still depend on them for their livelihood. Ford Rangers and various Jeeps of that era appear to survive in good numbers as well.
The 1994-1997 Honda Accord is still EVERYWHERE!
If this article implies that the Ford Falcon was the parent of every unitized chassis construction Fords (prior to the introduction of the Fox 1978-83 Fairmont/1979-03 Mustang) such as the 1970-77 Maverick, 1975-80 Granada & 1964 1/2-73 Mustang, does this meant that the 1971-80 Pinto, 1971-78 Cortina based Capri & the 1974-78 Mustang II were also Falcon based albeit on a much shorter platform?