1993 Chevrolet Camaro - The Search Continues

 

1993 Chevrolet Camaro

We're getting "newer". Well, less old.

 

 

Years of Northeast Ohio road brine have done a job on the plastic centers of these handsome alloy rims

 

This smoky grey (I think this actually might be purple) '93 Camaro coupe is significant because it was the first year for this particular body style. General Motors updated the "F-body" (GM speak for Camaro and Pontiac Firebird) in 1993 and it was a much welcomed and fairly successful (honestly, that's based more on critical reviews than actual sales) update of the "F" that was all new for 1982.

 

There isn't a bad line on the '93-'97 Camaros. GM mucked up the design for 1998 trying to freshen it up 

  

The styling was to die for and still holds up well (gulp) twenty years after it debuted. To get the swoopy, almost Corvette like curves, GM used polymer (plastic) exterior panels similar to what they used on  Saturn's. These plastic panels (not to be confused with the fiberglass body used on Corvettes) don't dent but they do scratch, bend, crack and ultimately can break. There's also some shift that goes on as these cars age. The hood, fascia and front fenders of our subject are out of alignment. Finally, there's the added weight of a full frame to help support all those plastic panels. The plastic body made for some neat architecture in lieu of any weight savings. All that weight tends to deaden the performance of the 160 horsepower, 3.4 liter V-6 engine. Upside, you don't want teenagers having anything they could be competitive with in a drag race.

 

"Camaro" allegedly means "friend" in French. Will you be my friend? 

 

There's some serious bulk to this car; it feels huge. Not that it isn't but it does feel larger than it actually is. You sit low, real low in this thing; like you're sitting in a tall bathtub. Also, not being able to see any part of the hood when you're down there in the hole adds to the feeling the car is gigantic. Gigantic and dense while at the same time cramped inside.

 

Torture chamber

The front passenger seating further compromised by a huge catalytic converter hump. There's no way to sit comfortably in the passenger seat of an '82-'02 F-body because the floor is pushed upwards towards the back of your legs. The back seat? Oh, you mean the parcel shelf that looks like a seat? When I had one of these (a 2002 Z-28), our boys, 8 and 9 at the time, referred to that back seat as "The Cave". 

 

 

My boys hated this car. Now they wish I still had it

 

I don't know if its me getting older or just mellowing out in general but I much prefer these "lesser" models of sporty cars than their top of the line, full on sport models. This car is a pleasant driver with a compliant ride, ample handling and decent enough power. The brakes have some ABS issues (alarming), she pulls to the right and the driver's door is a hot mess. The window doesn't roll up or down, the power lock switch is busted and the handle doesn't work so you can't get out. Oye!

 

Hey good lookin'! Care to bust up my spine into a million tiny bits?  

In comparison, my Z-28 was an obnoxious, unapologetic punk of a car whose punishing ride made me regret buying it at every turn. Now, the 310 horsepower, 5.7 liter my Z-28 had? Put that in this and you have "my car". Sorry, no dice. Never an option.

 

The base model of these cars is a much better daily driver than the Z-28

Despite our teenage boys protests, my up selling a rear wheel drive "sports car" along with the several weekends of projects to get it up to snuff was long putt for me to make with my wife.

The search continues!

 

I love you. But no.

1986 Chevrolet Camaro

The on again, off again search for an "extra" family car has taken us through many, many different types of cars all of which have met with near over powering yawns from our teenage boys sons. I'd love to say their opinion means nothing but I'd be lying. If I can make them really happy at the same time making myself happy with spending as little as possible...well then, we're all just gonna sing kumbaya.

 

I took them out the other night to look at "a car" not telling them what kind of car it was. Anticipating another smelly old Bonneville or Century you can only imagine their stunned, silent amazement when they saw this thing.

 

 

This "thing" being a 1986 Camaro Sport Coupe. A car near and dear to my heart. For as long as I can remember I've wanted one. Although I did have a 2002 Camaro and that was a Z-28 not a little "baby Camaro like this one here, I still have a fondness for these '82-'92 Camaros.

 

 

There are many challenges with being a frugal person/car guy who's searching for an "extra" family car or, "car for the boys". That extra car has to be cheap to buy and more importantly, cheap to own. They wanted nearly $4000 for this 2.8 liter Camaro with only, get this, 22,000 miles on her. Might be a lot of money for a 27 year old car but a more than reasonable amount of money for a car with only 22,000 miles on the clock. I couldn't get my check book out fast enough when I first saw it online.

 

Comparable Camaros of this vintage, in what appeared to be near mint condition, sell for at least double the asking price of our cute as a button, black stripped little 2+2 here. Why such a relative "low price"? Well, for starters, this is a V-6 powered Sport Coupe not a Z-28. Even the optional 305 engine would've pushed the asking price north by almost a grand. Not that the V-8 option on these Camaros made a significant difference in performance but Camaro drivers like, "V-8s".

 

 

The interior was fairly worn. Not terribly but enough that I would want to have some professional upholsterer work on it. To the car's credit, it was not a smoker. Important. Don't smoke. And if you must, don't smoke in your car. That can hurt not only your chances of selling your car but also drives down the resale of your car.

 

 

The biggest problem with this car, there's always something with an old car, was with the engine itself. There's something wrong with fuel system because when it warms up the engine bucks, kicks and backfires. The car crawls to almost a full stop. When my son was driving it he thought it had run out of gas. It hadn't. It was just kicking like a sick goat because of the fuel system issues. I surmised that it was either dirty fuel injectors, bad fuel injectors, bad gas, bad coil packs, a bad catalytic converter or worse yet, a bad EEOM (electronic engine operating module). None of this seemed particularly alarming to me and better yet, I thought it a strong bargaining tool . I didn't want to drop $4000 on this car anyway.

When I offered $1500 with the mind set not to go north of $2000, the nice sales team just smiled and said to come back in the morning and talk to the manager. They also said they'd get a mechanic to look at the car and try to determine what was up with the engine. The boys were giddy with anticipation. So was I.

 

I called in the morning and was told the car had been shipped out already to "The Auction". I got the feeling that was the plan all along and my low ball offer was politely humored. Probably just as well but my boys and I were disappointed. However, seeing how excited they got over the prospect of this car has gotten me focused on something for them (us?) that is something a little more interesting than a smelly old Bonneville or Century.

 

 

The search continues. Y'all stay tuned.



1974 Buick Century - The Morning After

 

What with Vietnam, Nixon, Unleaded Gas, Recession, Catalytic Converters, Inflation, Jimmy Carter, 5 mph bumpers, The Iran Hostage Crisis, Two Gas Shortages and Disco, actually, now that I think about it....I like disco music, the 1970's were a challenging time for this country.  There were a lot of good movies that came out in the '70s too...so with that and disco, it wasn't all bad. Just mostly bad.

 



 

Growing up in the '70s felt like showing up to a great party The Morning After. While the house was trashed, you could tell that it must have been some soiree. The United States had won two World Wars inside of twenty five years and became, without question, the greatest super power the world has ever known. Pretty good reason to get your freak on. There was, however, like with most great parties, a hangover.

  

Large, lavishly equipped cars have seemingly always been a status symbol. After World War II, the size of American cars, in general, increased dramatically. They reached their their greatest bulk in the early 1970's. 

 

 

GM's new for 1971 full size "B bodies' being the biggest of them all. They only got bigger as the decade slowly marched on when federally mandated 5 mph bumpers were bolted onto already existing designs. These cars were so large, in fact, that GM's new for 1973, intermediate "A bodies", like our Buick Century, seemed svelte by comparison.

  

 



So svelte, in fact, that when GM "down sized" their full size cars for 1977, they used the B body platform, like the one that underpins our well worn subject,  as their underpinnings.

 

The new for 1973 Buick Century and all of its "A body" stable mates, broke no new technological ground although their styling was, subjectively, handsome. As many love these cars as dislike them. I'm partial, of course, to the coupes like our Century here.

1974 was significant for the Century for several reasons. First, it was the year that "the big bumpers" were on both the front and back (of all cars, actually, sold in this country), it was the last year cars sold in the U.S. didn't have catalytic converters,  and lastly, the last year the Century had a Buick V-8 as its standard engine. That is a Buick 350-2, a Buick built 350 cubic inch mill not be confused with "350 engines" from Chevrolet, Oldsmobile or Pontiac. They're all different. The "2" in 350-2 denotes a Rochester 2 barrel carburetor. Starting in 1975 a 231 cubic inch "Buick" V-6 engine would be the base engine in these big, heavy cars. A Buick 455 V-8 was available albeit with a 2 barrel carburetor; remember again what model year we're talking about here. I have to imagine people had to have been slightly aghast at the middling performance of the V-6 in these whoppers. Salespeople, no doubt, up selling the fuel saving potential of the V-6 versus the V-8. Honestly, the fuel savings was minimal. This was all a way for GM to sell large cars in a market that didn't want them. Cheaper to put a smaller engine into a car than an entirely new car. That "new" would have to wait until 1978. Read more about them  here. http://charleyconnolly.blogspot.com/2013/04/1979-buick-regal-unsoldbut-not-unloved.html

The 231 V-6 would eventually mature into a fantastic engine but in the mid '70s, it was a lumpy, sluggish, shaky mess. Not unlike the way a person feels after imbibing too much the night before.

 

How about a little hair of the dog in the way of a nice V-8 to make you feel better?

 

  

In 1973, Buick replaced their mid size model, the Skylark, with the Century. The Century nameplate first appeared on a Buick model in the 1930's and was said to be for an automobile that could accelerate to 100 mph. In England, that's called, "doing the century".

 

 

 

 

 

 

2002 Buick Park Avenue - I Like Big Cars...

 

I Like Big Cars...and I Can Not Lie. I just do. Don't know why. My wife says that I like, "old man cars". Well, if the shoe fits it...I wear it. Unashamedly so.

 

 

Perhaps it's a vestige of my youth; my parents, eccentric children of the Great Depression that they were, judged the size of a person's wealth by the size of the automobile they drove.

 



 

Bizzare as that may sound now there was some merit in that thinking years ago. After all, Cadillac carved its image producing gigantic automobiles. Particularly between 1971 and 1976, when I was a tender, young, impressionable nipper growing up in the concrete and asphalt wilderness of suburban NYC.

 

 

In those days, Cadillac (GM), produced some of the largest automobiles ever made. Some of that size had to do with enormous battering ram bumpers (starting in 1973) that the Government mandated but those chrome logs aside, they were some truly gigantic iron.

 

 

My parents had a 1972 Cadillac deVille that was very similar to '71 above. It was obscenely large. So much so that my father would routinely back it into trees. The car of course wouldn't show a scratch. Can't same the same for the poor old tree. Honestly, though, these cars were too big and The Good General knew that. By 1977, these big boys were gone.

  

 

This 2002 Buick Park Avenue fits my fancy to a tee. Yes, she's a tad long in tooth but she's in pristine condition. Had, if I recall correctly, a mere 25,000 miles on her clock and most importantly, she's big. Oh, so big. While pricey for a ten year old car I felt it a fair deal considering her condition and low miles.

 

 

Big as she is, though, she handles much smaller than her actual size. That's a good thing.  Performance is pretty brisk too for a large car with a six cylinder engine. That six being nothing like the wobbly sixes of yore. No, sir. The mighty GM 3800 standing at attention, sir!. 200 horsepower and 225 pound feet of torque at the ready. Very decent fuel economy too for a car of its size. Back then, GM offered a supercharged version of this engine on the Park Avenue Ultra that delivered significantly more performance. At a price. First as a window sticker premium and then at the pump. Not only did the supercharged engine require premium fuel for maximum power, gas mileage was appreciably lower to boot. Think I'll stick with the regular engine, thank you.

 

 

 

So, what's not to love, right? Well, my wife hated this car so that was that. No talking her off that ledge. This was not going to happen. No matter how much of value this big ole beauty may have been. Value, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser - A Good FIRST Impression

 

 

The Chrysler PT Cruiser makes a pleasant enough first impression. If you're inclined to appreciate "retro" styling then you're likely to find this little truck*, yes, the PT Cruiser is technically a "truck",  appealing, neat, or...ummm...cool? Chrysler made a splash with this thing back "in the year 2000" when the world was still in awe with the gee-golly-wow-cool "New" Beetle. Retro was in back then, baby. That Beetle was based stylistically on the iconic "People's Car". For more on the subject of retro styling, class, please google the 1990 Mazda Miata, 1994 Ford Mustang, 2005 Mustang, 2008 Dodge Challenger, 2003 Chevrolet SSR, the list goes on and on.

 

The PT Cruiser, JSYK, the PT stands for "Personal Transport" (can't make this stuff up), at its most elemental, is a tall, front wheel drive sedan powered by a large 4 cylinder engine. That big (2.4 liter)  engine sums up perfectly what the 'Cruiser is all about; good or at least decent first impressions. Tap the gas and the Cruiser takes off pretty good. "Whoa, this thing is zippy!" Get out into freeway traffic  and attempt to pass a semi and that buzzy four does you no favors. "Whoa, what's wrong with this thing?"

 

 

The "Little Engine That Could Not" habitually decides to take a siesta at the most inopportune moments. Fuel economy, according to contemporary road tests, is a middling 22 mpg. For a car, sorry, truck, of this size I would think you'd want more miles per dino. Especially considering the overall lack of chutzpah coming from under the bonnet.

Same with the handling. In a straight line the PT Cruiser is fine. It behaves well exhibiting no bad behavior. However, make it squirm to the tune of accident avoidance, road cones or light post stanchions in an abandoned parking lot and it unapologetically howls like sick goat. This cheeky little cutie ultimately ain't no fun, boys. It's under tired (tires and wheels are way too small), underpowered, soft, feels tippy when pushed around and generally feels like it's going to fall apart when tossed around aggressively.

Dealerships won't let you test drive their cars as aggressively as I drive cars on my little obstacle course behind the office building WGAR is located in. Having sold cars I can tell you first hand the last thing they want is for you to push one of their wares to the limit. First, they'd think you're a maniac and secondly they'd think you're a maniac. And that's too bad. Because only when you make things less than ideal for cars, sorry, in this case a truck,  can you see it for what it ultimately is or, as is the case of the Chrysler PT Cruiser, what it's not.

*The PT Cruiser was classified as a truck in the U.S. by the NHTSA for Corporate Average Fuel Economy "CAFE" calculations. Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards

AMC Pacer Wagon - There Are Some Things Even a Small Block Chevy Can't Fix

Our on again, off again search for a potential ride for our teenage boys has run the gamut from "inexpensive" new cars (is there really such a thing?) to old beaters. Sports cars to station wagons. SUV's to CRV's. And, he says with tongue in cheek, to this.

This...is a 1978 AMC Pacer, wagon.  My 16 year old was pretty blunt with his dismissal of this well worn but mostly rust free example of AMC's desperate attempt at mid '70s market share. "No", he said. "No...WAY". The look of terror on his face when my wife and kidded about how much we liked the thing and thought about getting it for ourselves was priceless.

He found no charm in this thirty-five-year-old little bomb. That's telling because he does appreciate some of the old stuff just like his old man does. Bless his heart. But he draws the line at certain cars much like I do. The AMC Pacer being one of them. Despite this being the more fetching of the now legendary (thanks, Wayne's World) body styles that were once available.

This car is different from the regular Pacer in that the cargo space out back is extended. A whole 5 inches of extension which gives the car significantly more storage capacity and makes the entire car, at least to my eyes, a whole more attractive (or is that less ugly?) than the non wagon version.

The wagon was available beginning in 1977. The Pacer was built by the late, mostly not so great American Motors Corporation from 1975-1980.

 

What's not to love about a Pacer? Well, plenty. As a wee little nipper growing up in the vast concrete and asphalt jungle of suburban NYC, I thought Pacers the ugliest car on earth. So, what's with this thing that makes it so ugly in the first place?

Well, it's the proportions of it, mostly. The Pacer started life as a mid size car that was literally shortened in front and out back. Note how wide this thing is. Then they stretched a funky two door body over what was left over and, oversimplifying things, there ya have it.

There was discussion of a Wankel Rotary engine going under the hood but that never happened. Most Pacers are powered by large in line sixes that had ample torque but modest horsepower. That meant they could scoot around town fairly well but would not go anywhere fast when you really needed it too. Not that it mattered. Most cars from the time these were new didn't go fast either.

 

Still, I wonder what this Pacer DL wagon would be like if I put a small block Chevy in her and firmed up the suspension. Mileage be darned.

 

Then I come to my senses, much like my son did in less than a split second, and came to the realization that there are some things even a small block Chevy can't fix.