Some while back, Jane and I spent a number of weekends test-driving various fun cars. As a quick recap, the MINI Cooper won; and the rented Mazda Miata with 97,000 miles tied with an ancient (but well-preserved) bottom-of-the-line Toyota pickup. Fast forward a couple years, and there’s the upshot, to the left there.

We call it the TARDIS.

• It’s a blue box.
• It takes me to different places at different times.
• It has a chameleon circuit so that it can change its appearance (i.e., the top goes up and down).
• And (drum roll) it’s bigger on the outside than on the inside!

There is some dispute as to what the word “TARDIS” stands for. Here are the current contenders:

• Transporting A Relaxed Dad In Style
• Top And Related Devices, Including Seats
• Towards And Relative Directions In Streets

Any suggestions?

I’d like to point out again that it is blue. Blue. BLUE.

I have always wanted a bright sky-blue car. Sky blue is not often available, but when shopping for a car I’ve always looked for something as close to it as possible. And for a variety of reasons always ended up with some shade of metallic red.

When I started looking at MINI Coopers, I didn’t like the shades of blue they had available; so when we went to the dealer to do some serious shopping a couple of months ago, I was looking to get a bright red one: a bright, non-metallic flashy red. (Heck, it’s a convertible!) And we walked out on the lot to due a test drive, and there was a pretty little MINI Roadster in this beautiful sky blue. “Wow! How come the regular convertible doesn’t come in this color?” “Oh, it does. It’s called Kite Blue.”

Clearly, I should have tried shopping for a red car years ago.

And here you thought I was done car-blogging.

A few weeks my wife’s minivan got rear-ended, and it ended up spending two weeks at the repair shop. My Cruiser is big enough for Jane and all the kids, so she used it whilst I went off to this year’s Tcl Conference; but when I got back, we needed another car. The Cruiser was working for her, so….

….we went out and rented a Miata for the week. I found this rental place on-line that rents Miatas at what seemed like a good price, and away we went.

Turns out the rental agency is a little dodgy–bad reviews on-line–but I didn’t know that, until I got there. It was a dinky little hole-in-the-wall, with just one person on duty to drive people to and from the airport, take rental cars to and from a private lot, and do all of the paper work. The Miata he brought out was eight or nine years old, and thus of the previous body style and interior, and had over 96,000 miles (!) on it. It was rather a bait-and-switch kind of moment.

But the price was good, and so I drove it for the next week.

Jane’s minivan was still in the shop, so for the next week I drove a 1987 Toyota Longbed pickup truck with less than 29,000 miles (!) on it.

So….just how do they compare?

Dash Board: The Miata’s interior was in pretty good shape, considering how heavily used it was. All of the instruments worked, though the speedometer’s backlight was a little too dim. There was a tachometer, and a clock, and all the usual trimmings. The Toyota’s dash is cracked from exposure to the sun, and there was no clock or tachometer to begin with. Advantage: Miata!

Upholstery: The leather seats were worn, though, and several passengers complained that they were too slippery. The Toyota’s upholstery, on the other hand, seems to be in near perfect shape, and remains very comfortable. Advantage: Toyota!

Radio: Both cars have an AM/FM radio. The Miata’s has a CD Player, but no auxiliary input; the Toyota’s has a cassette deck. This means that I could listen to music on my iPhone in the Toyota (via a cassette adaptor) and not in the Miata. I didn’t, as it happens, but I could have. Advantage: Toyota!

Visibility: The Miata’s visibility is excellent when the top is down, except for the bar across the top of the windshield, which is very unfortunately placed. When the top is up, visibility is lousy. The Toyota’s visibility is better than any car I’ve driven in the last ten years. There’s no back seat, so the rear window is right behind you; the pillars are narrow, so the blind spots are tiny; there’s no tinted glass, so you can see clearly. You don’t sit as low as in the Miata, and the roof is high enough over your head that it doesn’t get in the way. Advantage: Toyota!

Convertible: Well, OK. The Miata’s a convertible and the Toyota isn’t. Advantage: Miata!

Freeway Driving: At freeway speeds, the Miata shook, shimmied, and vibrated. It was very unpleasant, and I came to hate driving it on the freeway. Some folks thought it was just due to the sport suspension, but I think there was more to it than that. The Toyota, on the other hand, is very pleasant on the freeway. Advantage: Toyota!

City Driving: The Miata was lovely to drive around town with the top down. It was a lot of fun. The Toyota is a pickup truck. Advantage: Miata!

Transmission: The Miata has a six-speed manual transmission and over 96,000 miles. Jane drove it once or twice, and hated the gearbox with a passion. She said it was rough and unpleasant to use. The Toyota has a five-speed manual transmission–and I have to say, it was much more pleasant to use than the Miata’s. Advantage: Toyota!

Performance: Granted, the Miata has more power and was really fun to accelerate up to freeway speeds. But the Toyota is not bad either. Given the Miata’s worn gearbox and nasty behavior at speed, I have to call this one a wash.

Handling: Advantage: Miata! ’nuff said.

AC: The Miata has air conditioning (though I didn’t use it). The Toyota does not have air conditioning (and I didn’t use it). Advantage: Miata!

Fun: I really enjoyed driving the Miata around town, especially when I could bring Jane along. But on the other hand, I really enjoyed driving the Toyota around town, and it was much more pleasant on the freeway–and hey, this is Los Angeles. So this one is a wash, too.

Bottom Line: each car earned five points.

You heard it here first: a low-mileage well-maintained 1987 Toyota Longbed pickup truck compares nicely to a high mileage rented Mazda Miata.

Today we were scheduled to go look at the Audi A5 Convertible, and maybe the Audi TT Convertible, but we didn’t. Jane got on the website for the local Audi dealer, and we looked at the prices–about 10 to 15K more than the BMW 128i. No thanks. I couldn’t get excited about looking at Volkswagens or Volvos either.

So, at long last, we drove off to the local Mini dealer, and drove a Mini Cooper S Convertible. It was good.

Here’s what I liked:

• The overall appearance, and the fact that you can customize it the way you want.
• The visibility out the front windscreen, whether the top was up or down. Most of the convertibles we’ve driven, the top of the windscreen seems to be just barely above my eye-level.
• It’s roomy, compared to any of the other cars we’ve drive, and there’s good back support. I prefer a more upright posture when driving, and the Mini is good with that.
• I didn’t feel that I was maybe too big for the car.
• It has the best MPG rating of any car we’ve driven. It’s rated 27 MPG in the city; the others are rated 27 MPG highway.
• It’s got lots of power.
• I was definitely fun to drive.
• The top doesn’t fold into the trunk.

The interior was adequate, and the ride was a little rougher than I expected; though possibly the car we drove had the sport suspension. I’m told that you don’t need the sport suspension, the standard suspension is plenty good enough. Either way, it was comfortable, and fun.

In short, having driven a new Mini I’d still like to have one. Of course, I’d also like to have a Miata. I can’t have both. The rating therefore stands thus:

1. Mazda Miata or Mini Cooper S Convertible
2. BMW 128i
3. Nissan 370 Z
4. Chrysler 200 Convertible
5. Ford Mustang

If I had to pick today, I’d probably give the edge to the Mini; it’s slightly more practical, and I can sit with better posture without worrying about banging my head on the top. On the other hand, I like the Miata’s convertible hard top, and its trunk is actually more convenient (shocking though that is). On the other hand, I like the Mini’s selection of colors.

Good thing I’m not buying a car tomorrow.

So having spent four weeks looking at cars we probably weren’t going to want to buy, this week we decided to reward ourselves for our perseverance and look at a car that we thought we might.

And I will say, me like. Me like a lot.

First, the Miata is an attractive car. It’s cute. It’s sporty, but it isn’t mean-looking like the Mustang or stodgy like the BMW. It looks nice with a soft top, and the convertible hard-top is simply gorgeous whether the top is up or down. I’ve seen them out of the corner of my eye and thought, “Whoa, that’s a pretty car–what is it?”

But I knew all of that before we went shopping. The question has been, how is it to drive? How is it to sit in? What’s the trunk space like? Here are my impressions:

• The car is decidedly cosy. With the top up it has just barely enough headroom for me, and I wouldn’t want to be any wider. The salesman we worked with is both taller and wider than I am, and I’m amazed that he managed to get behind the wheel at all.
• On the other hand, I haven’t found any of the cars we’ve driven to be exceptionally comfortable. The best to date on the comfort scale was the Ford Mustang, and the Miata is at least as good. It’s cosy, but not otherwise unpleasant.
• I liked the interior. It worked for me.
• The trunk is small…but unlike the other cars we’ve looked at, the top doesn’t fold into the trunk but rather into a space right behind the seats. This is true for both the soft top and the hard top. You don’t lose any trunk space when the top comes down, and you don’t need to worry about what’s in the trunk before you put the top down. And my impression is that with the top down the trunks in the BMW 128i or Chrysler 200 are effectively smaller than the Miata’s.
• The headroom is pretty much the same with either top, but with the soft top there was a ridge right over my head. With the hard top there wasn’t.
• The gas mileage should be no worse than my PT Cruiser’s.
• There’s a nice choice of colors.
• The sticker price is $10K to $15k less than the Nissan and BMW.

OK; so much for the practical details. What’s it like to drive?

I drove a 2012 Miata with six-speed manual transmission and sport suspension, and I have to say it is very, very nice. It doesn’t glide along magically like the BMW, but it’s a smoother ride than my Cruiser’s, and much smoother than the Nissan 370Z. I couldn’t take it on the freeway, so I don’t have a good feel for its raw power–but on the other hand, I’m not worried about it either. It felt great on surface streets.

I wish the interior were just a little more roomy. That’s my only complaint, and I think I could live quite happily with the room there is.

In short, for the first time on the list we have a real contender. Here are the current rankings:

1. Mazda Miata
2. BMW 128i
3. Nissan 370 Z
4. Chrysler 200 Convertible
5. Ford Mustang

This is the car I test-drove; but I think I’d prefer it in red or blue with the beige interior. It’s pretty sweet in this color, too, though.

We looked up-market this week, at the BMW 128i and 328i convertibles. Both cars are coupes with reasonably large back seats, and I think they are about the same price. The 328i has a convertible hard-top, and even less room in the trunk with it down than the Chrysler 200. The 128i has a soft-top, and the trunk is effectively rather larger.

I drove the 128i, and I have to say I liked it a lot. The interior is lovely, the seats are comfortable, it has lots of power, and it handles like a dream. The ride is smooth, and the feel is exactly what I’m looking for: you press the accelerator, and it goes, smoothly and powerfully, without making a big deal out of it. It’s got an automated manual shifter, like most of the cars I’ve driven, but no paddle shifters on the steering column; if you want to drive it in manual mode, you have to use the shift lever.

Of the cars I’ve driven so far, I liked this one the most. It’s fun, it’s powerful, and I like the overall feel of the car. It has only a few defects:

• The gas mileage is nothing special, 18 city and 27 highway, which is similar to the other cars I’ve driven so far.
• The center console doesn’t poke my knee the way the console in the Chrysler 200 does, but it is a little wide; my knees were pushed a little further to the left then I thought comfortable.
• It’s a lot more expensive than the Chrysler or the Mustang, and comparable to the Nissan 370Z.
• According to the salesman (who was pleasant and helpful) it comes only in black, white, and silver.

That last point is interesting. I was watching the cars on the road on the way home, and it appears that most new cars are black, white, or silver. I saw a few that were a muted metallic green, and occasionally a bright red, but the vast majority were gray-scale. This may be why the Mini Cooper appeals to me: you can get it in bright colors.

Anyway, the current ranking is as follows:

1. BMW 128i
2. Nissan 370 Z
3. Chrysler 200 Convertible
4. Ford Mustang

I’ve got a Chrysler that I love, so it seemed only reasonable to go out and see what Chrysler has available these days. The PT Cruiser hasn’t been made since 2009, so getting a new Cruiser isn’t even an option. Given that, the most likely contender is the 200 Convertible.

Good:

• It’s a convertible.
• The driver’s seat doesn’t pinch the way the Nissan 370 Z’s did.
• It not only has seats for four people, but four people can sit in them.
• The interior is somewhat nicer than the Mustang’s.
• Sirius Satellite radio and a good iPod/iPhone interface…but all of the premium packages seem to have that these days.
• It’s a convertible.
• It’s cheaper than the 370 Z by quite a lot.

But really, the only thing special about it is that it’s a convertible.

Bad:

• The seat is unpleasantly firm; though possibly that’s adjustable.
• The gas mileage isn’t any better than the 370 Z or Mustang, and probably worse than my Cruiser’s.
• It might have a little more power from a full stop than my Cruiser, but less than I’m looking for.
• My knees rested uncomfortably on the door and on the bottom corner of the instrument panel.
• It’s nothing special to look at.

Conclusion:

I prefer the Chrysler 200 Convertible to the Mustang. It beats the Nissan 370 Z on seating and price; the 370 Z beats the 200 on looks, fun, and power. As far as comfort goes, the two are about equal; though if that pinchy driver’s seat on the 370 Z could be adjusted not to pinch, the 370 Z would win on comfort.

It’s close, but I’m going to give it to the 370 Z by a nose. So the ranking at this point is:

• Nissan 370 Z
• Chrysler 200 Convertible
• Ford Mustang

It’s only fair to say that David liked it; but David liked it mostly because it has a back seat he finds comfortable to sit in. Given that I’m willing to pick a car with no back seat at all, that only counts for so much.

So today Jane and I went out to the local Nissan dealer and looked at Nissan 370 Z’s, and test drove a 370 Z convertible. Let’s follow the procedure I set forth last time, and see how it stacks up.

1. Can we afford it? Just barely. It’s more than I really want to spend, but we could possibly stretch a point.
2. Appearance? It’s both distinctive and attractive. It comes in black, white, and silver, apparently, none of which really do anything for me.
3. Interior? Not bad. I liked it much better than the Mustang interior, and it was a little roomier than the Mustang—I didn’t feel squeezed between the door and the center console. The seat itself was a little too narrow, though: I felt a little pinched by it.
4. Performance? That I liked better than the Mustang as well. It accelerates nicely, and it’s got a “manual” transmission with paddle shifters. I’d not seen this before, but it was kinda cool. There’s no clutch pedal, and you can let the car handle the shifting itself if you like. On the other hand, you can put it in manual mode, and then you’re completely in control of when the car shifts. It handled nicely, too, and I enjoyed driving it.

   I drove it with the top down, which was nice; I suspect the visibility would be pretty bad with the top up. As we drove I could feel the wind on the top of my head a bit, which was nice, but I didn’t feel windblown, which was also nice. The ride was kinda bumpy.

   The gas mileage is similar to the Mustang’s, which is to say, not as good as I’d like.

5. Conclusion? I like it, though I suspect I can do better. The only real showstopper is the seat.

All of that said, I wouldn’t buy one from the dealership I went to, or at least not from the salesman I talked to. First of all, I had trouble understanding what he said; he’s Armenian (not surprising around here), and he had a thick accent and mumbled. Second, when I finished my test drive I told him twice that I’d like Jane to try it…and he parked the car and put it away anyway. I could have made a big deal out of it, but I chose not to. And third, I told him I wanted to look at a 370 Z convertible, and I test drove the one he showed me to. After we got back I discovered that it was a (admittedly new) 2010 model. I can understand that they want to get the 2010 Z’s off of the lot; and maybe there’s no real difference between the 2010 and 2011 Z’s. Maybe they had no 2011 Z convertibles in stock (though that seems unlikely). But it seems like he should have told me that it was a 2010 before I started to look at it.

Of course, maybe he did, and I didn’t understand him.

Bottom line, I don’t expect to get a Z, but I liked it better than the Mustang. So the current ranking is as follows:

1. Nissan 370Z Convertible
2. Ford Mustang with Premium Package

Jane and I have decided that sometime in the next six months or year, we’re going to get a new car. I’m currently driving a 2004 PT Cruiser, which has been a great car, still runs well, seats four, is built like a tank, and is remarkably crash safe…and in about a year, my eldest is going to be old enough to learn to drive. So we aren’t looking to replace my car, exactly. Instead, we’re looking for something fun. Here’s what we’re looking for.

• First, it needs to have more power. I love my Cruiser, but it’s a little sluggish getting on the freeway and going up hills. It’s especially sluggish getting on the freeway whilst going up a hill at the same time, which is something I do daily.
• Second, it needs to have a fun, distinctive look, as the Cruiser does.
• Both the driver and front passenger seats need to be comfortable to sit in.
• It should be fun to drive.
• The gas mileage should be no worse than my Cruiser’s. (This is not hard.)
• I have to like it better than I do my Cruiser.
• If it seats four, that’s nice, but it’s not required. Two will do. (That is, me and Jane.)

A sports car is a possibility. A convertible is a possibility. But I’m also open to something else entirely, provided that the criteria are met.

Since there’s no rush to buy, we’re going to take our time and have fun with it. So what we’re going to do each weekend is go out and look at a car. One (1) car. Or, at least, one dealer. If they’ve got multiple offerings that might do, we’ll look at all of them.

Here’s our procedure:

1. Look up the make on-line first, and see what models might be of interest. There’s no point in looking at something we can’t afford, or going to a dealer if they have no cars I’d even consider.
2. How does it look? Is it immediately recognizeable, or does it look like everything else on the road?
3. Go to the dealership and sit in the car. Does it pass the laugh test? Can I sit in it comfortably? Is the instrument panel interesting and fun, or is it ugly and pedestrian. If I can’t stand the interior, there’s no point in driving it.
4. Go for a test drive. How does it handle? Do I like driving it? Is it still comfortable? When I accelerate, is it effortless? Or does it seem to be working too hard?
5. Is it adequate? Is it great? Do I love it?

Today we went to one of the local Ford dealerships, and test-drove a Mustang (V6, premium package, but not a convertible). Here’s my assessment.

• Looks: OK, but a bit understated for a Mustang. Half the time when I see a Mustang on the road these days it turns out to be a Dodge Challenger.
• Interior: Not bad, but a little cramped side-to-side. Not too much headroom. Not as comfortable as my cruiser. The instrument panel is nothing special.
• Performance: better than my Cruiser (heck, it’s a V6 vs. an underpowered V4), but not what I expected. I want to press the accelerator from a standing stop and have it accelerate quickly and effortless. The Mustang accelerates just fine, but makes a big deal about it. (Possibly that’s just part of the whole pony-car thing.)
• Score: Adequate; not great. I don’t love it.

I will say, though, that they had a GT that was exactly the perfect shade of blue. I don’t want a GT–the V8 is a little too thirsty for my taste–but if I loved the Mustang I’d have found that GT very tempting. More than I want to spend, but very tempting.