How much does the look affect your choice?

[VinnySC10]

So, I tend to focus on what a thing can do way more than how it looks. If it looks dumb, but works, then it isn't dumb kind of mindset.
That said, I'm kinda stuck between two cars I've found, a 1985 and 1999 suburban. The 1999 seems to have the better capabilities and is cheaper, but the 85 just has in my mind a look that suits me better. It's not nearly as "soccer van" looking as the 1999.

So I guess my question is how much does the look of a vehicle affect your own buying pattern?

 

[OTH Overland]

For me I weigh 4 major categories when selecting a new or new to me vehicle. First I set a realistic budget I am able or willing to spend (factoring in the cost of any repairs to a used vehicle and planned upgrades. then in no particular order 1. Mechanical (reliability and ease of repair & maintenance, especially on the trail), 2. Availability of aftermarket support for accessories and overlanding 'bling' unless you love to fabricate or adapt., 3. How well suited is the vehicle to the type of use (abuse?) I intend to subject it to., 4. aesthetics, fit & finish, I keep vehicles a long time and looks can play a big part in how much you enjoy driving it.

Its easy to get caught up in any one category such as appearance, when shopping around, only to realize that you forgot to either account for how much stuff you want to haul, or realize that you cant get around the tight corners on your favorite trail without leaving a bumper or mirror behind. I did have a '82 suburban for a number of years, really liked that body style over the newer ones, loved how easy it was to work on, but I hated the quadrajet carburetor a coldblooded beast that flooded out on steep hills and other awkward times when off road, not to mention abysmal mileage from the 454 big block. lots of aftermarket fuel inject kits nowadays to fix that though. keep the hood hinges well lubricated on the older suburban's so they don't seize up when shutting the hood and cause the hood to bend...learned that one the hard way.

 

[Billiebob]

Looks vs Function.... depends on how well you define function.
But considering 2 Suburbans, there will be little different in the function while in use.
The big difference might be service, parts availability, reliability, comfort, ride, economy.

If any of those are better comparing the 2,,, pick the winner.

ps, the older one might be easier and cheaper to outfit. It was common to bolt racks etc directly to the body. I'm not sure that is even possible on a newer Suburban what with the fancy interior finishes and complexity of wiring, plastic cover bits, insulation. Lots of the comfort plusses of a newer vehicle add exponentially to the cost of adding things. Function should be the deciding factor not "looks".... They're both just Chevys.

 

[VinnySC10]

For me I weigh 4 major categories when selecting a new or new to me vehicle.

Here in also lays an issue, I'm finding it hard to know which category outweighs the others. How much more do I like the looks of say the 1985 suburban, to the point where it overcomes the issue of not being able to start in the cold?

Which for that I admit I could go and convert it to fuel injection, or never leave Arizona again but it's just an example.

 

[smritte]

The deciding factor should be "how mechanically inclined are you"?

If you want either to be reliable, your going to be dropping a bit of money into them. That's a given. How much can you do yourself? If your moding to the point where aftermarket support is an issue, there's something else. Off road wise, you can lift either. Swing out rear bumper will be difficult, front maybe not for the older one. The newer one will be more comfy but more expensive to baseline. You can add in comfort to the older one, just start adding in zeros to the cost. On the older one and maybe the newer one, you have the "NLA" issue (no longer available) for items. that's something to look into also. The nice thing is, the older one used a bunch of standard parts.
I can say this about your choices because I worked for GM from 79-06 and have been off-roading/moding things before that.

 

[VinnySC10]

The deciding factor should be "how mechanically inclined are you"?

That's a really solid all around reply, thank you. That's kind of sums up most of my issues. I am fairly mechanically inclined, ive worked in a mechanical and electrical role for a while now. And have always been turning wrenches.

I figure either way I'd be looking at a new engine/trans down the line due to the milage most of them are found with. I'd worry the newer ones would have so many electronics pushed into the engine bay that it would make it harder to modify down the line. While the older ones are more mechanical and have more analog controls. Which in my head would be easier to change.

Add to the fact I personally like the older ones more just on a looks basis and it's hard to look away from them .

But, they cost more in my area and as you said don't have some of the creature comforts of the newer ones.

 

[terryg]

I attended an Overlanding Academy presentation at Rendezvous in the Ozarks 2021. I don't recall the name of the gentleman who gave the presentation, but he is very knowledgable on this topic. He put together a decision hierarchy for the DOD on making purchases. I thought it was fascination and very helpful. HERE is his presentation.

 

[North American Sojourner]

Depends on your wallet. In my opinion it's got to look cool even if it has crappy working equipment, parts and pieces. If you have the money, then you can replace those parts, pieces. Simple as that.
I loved the Tacoma because of the way it looked, however it sucked for several reasons I won't get into. I sold it and bought a F250. The F250 looks bad ass and has some good parts. It was much cheaper but had some hail damage. I can fix that.
Just my opinion.
Zim

 

[speedkills]

To follow up on the excellent answer of how mechanically inclined you are, if one excites you far more than the other, for me that turns into motivation in the garage to get work done, and also makes me want to take it out more. But if you're the kind of person that wants to go out constantly regardless of what rig you have, and it doesn't make a difference in motivation, then no big deal.

As far as looks, I will say I have more fun in my cooler looking rigs because of how happy it makes others on the trail to see me. You know that feeling you get when you see an old military Jeep or maybe an old Defender on the trail? Well if you are driving something unique like that, you give that feeling to everyone else you pass which I'm not going to lie feels pretty good.

 

[smritte]

am fairly mechanically inclined, ive worked in a mechanical and electrical role for a while now. And have always been turning wrenches.

That makes a huge difference. My latest toy is my Cruiser. I don't even want to think how much this would cost if I had to pay someone to baseline it. As it sits, my entire driveline (except the trans) is new as well as my interior and countless mods. When my trans is done I will be around 22k invested. Not bad for a vehicle that was around 45k new in 96. I like the year do to the simplicity.

With the experience I have in both your choices, I personally would take the older one. I would swap in a newer motor/trans as well as some newer seats and more modern gauges. Even though it would be cool, I wouldn't swap in an LS motor unless you very good with the troubleshooting later. Mid 90's port injected 350 with a 700r4 trans to keep it simple and reliable. You can make any of them 50 state smog legal with enough cash. I've done or helped with over a dozen GM motor swaps over the years (mostly in Jeeps), all of which were Cali smog legal.

 

[MazeVX]

I would never buy something if I don't like how it looks.
In this case, I would ask one thing, how much time do you want to spend working on it?

The 85 probably needs 10 times the amount of work than the 99 and will never be in the same range of comfort.
But if you want to work, have a workshop, another daily and you are quite a good mechanic go for it.

 

[zgfiredude]

OK, when it comes to Suburbans, I vote the 85 all the way. I had an 87 (fuel injection) and I still miss it 20 years later! If you're at all mechanically inclined, you will love working on the older one. Ditch the carb and add throttle body fi to it and you're set. Or, if it's tired, upgrade to the fi/700r4 version drive train. I love that Era flat side Chevy's. Logic be damned!!

 

[tjZ06]

I'll be honest... I care about looks. It's not my #1 determining factor, but I'll admit they matter somewhat to me. I always loved the look of the WJs, so I built one. I always thought my '11 Silverado 2500HD would look better with a solid axle and 37"s, so I'm doing that too. Of course, both of those choices had many other factors that went in before looks. I could write a book on why I chose the WJ, but the short-ish version is great size (much smaller than modern SUVs, or even 4-door JK/JLs), linked coil-sprung solid axles front/rear, V8, nice interior with "luxury" features... and looks cool. As for the solid axle swap, well obviously it's going to articulate much better than the stock IFS, allows moving the axle center line forward to fit the larger 37"s without actually lifting the truck much more at all, gives me an option for a selectable front locker, allows for a front free-spin (so I can run "2wd Low")... and it looks cool.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that looks matter, and anybody who says they don't is just lying to you or themselves. But, function should come first, second, third, fourth...

So, when it comes to the '85 vs. '99 let's talk function first. Of course, there's the elephant in the room too: budget. For 99.99% of us, budget actually comes before everything else. IMHO the question becomes, which will function better for you within your budget. Obviously the '85 looks cooler, but it also might be more functional if you're into trails that require more articulation. In just about every other way, the '99 will be functionally better. Of course, if budget isn't an issue, the '85 could be made just as nice to drive, just as reliable, just as fuel efficient, etc. or the '99 could be solid axle swapped. :p

There's also the question of how handy you are with a wrench, and do you have to deal with smog. I'm in CA, and the '85 would be a nightmare here unless I kept it bone-stock as far as engine... in which case it'd be a super-slow turd with terrible MPG. That alone would move me towards the '99.

-TJ

 

[VinnySC10]

Well, I appreciate all of your guy's input. In the end I went with what I like. So I present, Babe. My big blue ox.

 

[tjZ06]

Well, I appreciate all of your guy's input. In the end I went with what I like. So I present, Babe. My big blue ox.

Nice, congrats! Can't wait to see the build.

-TJ

 

[Billiebob]

Well, I appreciate all of your guy's input. In the end I went with what I like. So I present, Babe. My big blue ox.

Great choice and you picked the best looking one !!

 

[Mid State Overland]

So, I tend to focus on what a thing can do way more than how it looks. If it looks dumb, but works, then it isn't dumb kind of mindset.
That said, I'm kinda stuck between two cars I've found, a 1985 and 1999 suburban. The 1999 seems to have the better capabilities and is cheaper, but the 85 just has in my mind a look that suits me better. It's not nearly as "soccer van" looking as the 1999.

So I guess my question is how much does the look of a vehicle affect your own buying pattern?

Neither on of them will look like a soccer van after its lifted, racks added, lights added, so I would go with the one thats in the best condition that has the options that fit your starting needes. You may also want to look and compair price of parts to modify each because being different generations one or the other may have more aftermarket support.