1984 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 - Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

Two gas shortages in the 1970's and government mandated emissions regulations left The Big Three scrambling to develop computerized, electronic engine control systems that could enable automobile engines to run cleaner and more efficiently. Although micro processing was hardly what it is today those engine control systems, introduced on Fords in 1978, did do what they were intended to do. However, they also impeded engine performance, drivability, were prone to failure and were expensive to repair. Worse yet, there was no legal way to bypass them. Combined with low brake horsepower, low torque and numerically high drive ratios, despite lower curb weights, the early 1980's were the nadir of poor performance in American automobiles and it seemed as though merely adequate automobile performance was a thing of the past.

 

Therefore, it was nothing short of remarkable when Ford offered a "performance" V-8 engine in their Mustang GT in 1982. Thanks to the rapid development of Ford's Electronic Engine Control Systems or "EEC", the Boss was back" even if at full boil that V-8 made only 157 horsepower. Didn't matter to a horsepower starved America; it had more power than any other engine Ford offered at the time and it provided performance that was all but impossible just five years prior given the state of primitive, mechanical emission control systems. What's more, that engine had an old fashioned carburetor and not, what was becoming increasingly commonplace at the time, fuel injection.

If there was any problem with the Holley equipped V-8 1982 Mustang GT, it was that if you wanted the go fast V-8 you could only get it with a manual transmission.  If you wanted an automatic with your GT in 1982, Ford offered their de-bored 120 horsepower, carbureted, 255 cubic inch V-8. For 1983, the 255 was discontinued so for '83, no V-8 engine was offered on any Mustang that did not have a manual transmission.

That changed in 1984 when Ford began offering a "High Output" V-8 Mustang with an automatic transmission. However, it was not the same engine they offered in Mustangs (and Mercury Capri's for that matter) with manuals. It was, instead, a "High Output" version of the fuel injected engine they sold in all other rear wheel drive automobiles that had either a V-8 option or as standard equipment.

While it was slightly less powerful than the carburetor equipped V-8 engines in the manual transmission cars, those of us who prefer automatics to manuals finally had a High Output V-8 Mustang.

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

By 1986 all Ford Mustangs featured fuel injection.

Bye, Bye Cable TV - Take Back Control

I just reduced my family's monthly cable TV expense from a nose bleed inducing $207 per month to a "are you for real?" $35 a month. How?

I switched from cable TV to "over the air" TV. I held onto our cable provider for internet access and dropped our home phone but as far as regular TV goes, that's now free. And the picture is HD and spectacular. While our channel selection is a fraction of what it used to be, did we really need three different versions of ESPNU?, we do not miss any of it and for any "premium experience" we use Amazon Fire to access Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime. While the Netflix and other subscriptions amount to approximately $30 a month, we're going to drop one of them, technically our bill for "TV" is $65 a month but what we cut each month to the cable company is now just $35 a month instead of $207.

Now, before I went "off the grid", I spoke to my cable provider about reducing our bill. Just like that, they offered a whopping $25 a month discount for one year. After a year they'd jack it back up again. Lovely.

Next I asked about them taking us off their "Signature Plus" plan - that dropped our bill to $152 a month. Still not enough. When I asked what their least expensive plan was they offered me something called "Limited Basic". With "Limited Basic", internet, and no home phone our bill would drop to $55 a month. While I understood that "Limited Basic" would give me just local TV stations and I'd lose my precious DVR's, frankly, they're one of the few things that are worth the money, I made an appointment for a service tech to come to my house and remove everything. It also meant no fancy , all in one remote controls too. Speaking of cable controllers, who remembers tripping over the cable for these old Jerrold boxes?

First pothole we hit was that "Limited Basic" isn't HD - the picture was flat and lifeless, as if something wasn't quite right. I felt like we were back in the 1960's. The only way to get HD would be to go with their "Basic" plan which needs another special converter and would push our bill up to about $110 a month. But of course. In fairness, "Basic" comes with a fair amount of channels - it's not bare bones like "Limited Basic" is. Now, while $110 a month is almost half of what we were paying, when the cable company offered me a plan for just $55 a month I want a plan for $55 a month. Or less.

The only other option was to go "OTA" or "over the air". Sounds oddly complicated and primitive at the same time but it's very straight forward. The first thing I did was buy an antenna like this from Best Buy for about $110. Steep, yes, but it's a one time expense I figured. I assembled it and attached it to our bed room TV, changed the TV's input to "ANT" for antenna and rescanned the channels. Boom. Money. Everything worked. I got all of our local Cleveland stations and best of all, they were HD. Score.

I hit a second pothole when I hooked up all of my TV's to the antenna through the cable box on my deck. Some of the TV's worked but only got maybe half the local stations while others wouldn't work at all. A powered, coax splitter did nothing to help the signal. By the way, it's a good idea to do schematics of your house when you tackle projects like this.

Long story short, the problem was that while my TV in my bedroom, which is on the second story of my house, worked fine with that antenna, when I put the antenna down on my deck the lack of height down there made it difficult for the antenna to pick up signals. I then put the antenna back in our bedroom and ran a long coax cable out my bedroom window down to the cable box and voila, success. Note - with digital TV antennas height is key. If you have a one story house, you're going to need to find a way to get enough height. Perhaps an antenna like this is in store for you.

Finally, to make this deal even sweeter, I made this TV antenna for just $6 so I can return the $100 store bought antenna. Yes, those are coat hangers. I know, crazy but it works better than the store bought antenna. Kid you not. Total cost of the project that included 125 feet of coax cable and a digital converter for an older set we use that does not have a digital tuner - around $75. And that's a one time expense. Sure beats almost $2,500 a year for cable.

Saturn Aura - Too Little Too Late.

This is not the typical type of car I like to write about but I've done so to illustrate a point or two. 

Years ago, I found out that my boss, let's call him "Bob", was about to lose his job several days before he was actually fired. In the days leading up to his dismissal, Bob worked harder than I had ever seen him work before and honestly, had he worked as hard as he did that last week or so I have to think that he probably would have kept his job. He was also pleasant to deal with too; he wasn't the mean, lazy snake that everyone despised. He was so great to work with that I almost felt bad for him for what was about to happen to him. Almost. Even on the morning he was let go he was working like a mad man when he got the call that the big boss needed to see him. Pow. We met for lunch a week or so later and I asked him if he knew that he was in trouble and he said he knew things weren't exactly rosey but he didn't think he'd lose his job. He didn't see it coming. Seeing the situation somewhat from afar I found what he said hard to believe.

Long before General Motor's Saturn division introduced this car to replace their L-series sedan for the 2006 model year, they were in trouble. Big trouble. When Saturn was dissolved after the 2009 reorganization, I would find it hard to believe that those in charge didn't see it coming but you know that there are those who didn't. I feel especially bad for the factory workers who were doing a great job assembling this neat little car.

Introduced in 1991, throughout the 1990's, Saturn had carved out an off beat niche and had cultivated a loyal customer base akin to what Volvo and Saab once had. The Saturn charm was their marketing of a pleasant, no hassle buying experience above and beyond anything else. Everything else was same old Roger Smith era, 1980's GM. The plastic bodied Saturn SL was crap.

As sales plunged, subsequent attempts to offset sagging sales, the "L-Series" and "Ion" for instance, failed to find a substantial enough customer base to keep the division solvent. Then, when GM was rebadging the terrific Opel Vectra for use as a Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6, they repurposed it for Saturn as well. Saturn, which billed it'self as a different kind of car company, was all of a sudden just like everything else GM was pushing out. And of you didn't know any better, you thought that Saturn's efforts as their ship was sinking were about to pay off since this was (or is) a really good car.

Too little, too late. Just like "Bob".

1974 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Town Sedan - Grand Dad's Oldsmobile

 

Funny how the simplest of styling touches can make or break a car. General Motors offered their four door sedans in two different styles back in the 1970's; not sure why but they did. The better looking of the two was something they called a "hard top" that featured only "A" and "C" pillars giving a nice, clean, dare I say "sporty" look to the profile of the cars. Like on the Buick Electra we just looked at and this Delta 88 featured in a brochure for 1974 Oldsmobiles. Note the unseat belted kid. Hysterical. By the way, the "A pillar" is the front pillar that holds up the windshield while the "C pillar" is the large pillar or post holding up the back of the roof. Some people refer to the "C pillar" as the sail panel.

The term "hard top" was derived from cars that looked as though they were convertibles but had fixed roofs instead. The term is more apropos on two door cars than four door cars in my opinion but GM's 1971-1976 four door hard tops were some handsome automobiles. On the other hand there were the formal sedans that had a "B pillar" between the front and rear doors like this 1974 Oldsmobile Delta 88 "Town Sedan".

It's a subtle nuance but it makes a big difference. I have to imagine that if this poor old thing was a hard top it would sell much quicker and for perhaps more money. If you're wondering, it's for sale for just $2995 about 45 minutes south of down town Cleveland, Ohio. Price is fair for a forty one year old car in what appears to be mint condition. Just has to find a buyer. That's going to be tough.

My dad had a 1972 Cadillac DeVille hardtop that was absolutely a blast to drive with all the windows down. With no "B pillar", the wind would whisk through the car making it feel as though you were on a speed boat. You felt the wind all around you but it didn't bother you. Much. I loved that. With that big fat "B pillar" right there, with the windows down the wind gets buffeted and pounds passengers. Not fun.

 

 

 

 

The story behind these low mileage old cars in great shape is usually the same - grand dad's last brand new car he hardly used before something happened to him. Nice meaning family members storing the car for years either for sentimental reasons or a misguided belief that it would be worth something some day. Why couldn't Grand Dad had splurged on at least a coupe?

 

 



2015 Toyota Camry - Just Another Car

 

 

 

Since 1983, Toyota has been defining what a sedan ought to be and they have sold millions of class defining Camrys. Now, thirty plus years ago, it was almost too easy for Toyota to redefine the American automobile because there was so much junk out there. These days, with everything being great, the Camry appears to be skating by on image more than continuing to define or at least redefine what a sedan is or can be. Remarkably, the Toyota Camry has become just another car.

 

 

It's all about the seat of your pants experience. Despite its Tupperware grade interior, I liked the flinty ride of  my 2002 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS better than the 2012 Camry my wife had as a company car a couple of years ago. I thought that Camry, which is mechanically identical to this car, a wonderfully screwed together automobile with a really nice interior but I loathed taking it on long trips. It was floaty and vague and I never felt as though I had complete control of it. It felt numb to minute details of road holding and it did nothing to keep me focused on driving. I blamed that base model's soft suspension and smaller wheels and tires for most of that but the more research I do on Camry's, the more suspect I am of the "sportier" SE and XSE models handling the same way. It was bullet proof reliable, though. Not a thing went wrong in over 60,000 miles. Wish I could say the same for my Monte. As much fun as it is, it's been a handful to maintain.

 



 

All, or I should say most cars are remarkably reliable these days and perform at levels that are better than what sports cars could perform at years ago. Much of that has to be attributed to Toyota and we thank them profusely for that. However, now that the students have caught up to the teacher if not past him, what's Toyota going to do with Camry next?

 

 



 

 

2001 BMW Z3 - Godspeed and Happy Motoring

BMW launched the Z3 late in 1995 with a couple of unique marketing campaigns - the car was featured, albeit briefly, in the James Bond film, "GoldenEye".  They also pushed these cars around to local radio stations and had disc jockeys on the stations, usually the people who were on in the morning, test drive the cars and then the disc jockeys, or "radio personalities" would talk about the cars on the air. I happened to have been one of those disc jockeys who got to test drive a brand new 1996 BMW Z3 during that program. Little did the representatives know what they were getting themselves into when the signed up with me to do a sh-peel about their hot new roadster. 

Oh, who am I kidding. I wish I had a cool, fun story to tell you about my time behind the wheel of that long ago and far away little Z3 but I don't. With a BMW rep in the car with me as a nanny, there really wasn't too much I could do except be respectful and take it easy. Not there there was really much I could do with it seeing it had a 1.9 liter in line 4 with maybe 110 horsepower. Our photo subject has the more powerful 2.5 liter in line six. Same automatic, though. 



As is always the case with under powered cars that handle spectacularly, you quickly forget that the car is "slow". A car that is over powered or even adequately powered that can't handle, take my 1977 Corvette for instance, is a car that grows tiresome. Quickly. After all, power is nothing without control. I loved that little car despite the two passengerness of it and it being a convertible. Loved the styling too. The car is based on BMW's fabulous E36 chassis, the basis for the 3 series BMW's of that vintage, so you'd be hard pressed to find a better performing car. 

Add a dollop or two of beans and you really have something. I have to imagine this car, with its larger six cylinder engine, would be great fun. If you're in the market for a gently used old Bimmer roadster, give Stohlman a call. Just be forewarned; BMW's are very expensive to maintain and repair. Especially one this old and out of warranty. Godspeed and happy motoring. 

2006 Ford Five Hundred - What's In A Name?

Let's give Ford the benefit of the doubt they did some perceptual research on "Taurus" and found it lacked proper mojo back about a decade or so ago, but they ditched twenty years of brand equity in "Taurus" when they rolled out this car as its replacement late in 2004 as a 2005 model. They called it, "Five Hundred". Just goes to show how subjective taste is; I thought this car quite good looking. Most people, apparently, did not.  

"Five Hundred" was a harmless, albeit grand sounding update of Ford "500's" of yore  - the Galaxie and Fairlane. The 2005-2007 Ford "Five Hundred" was a great example of the name of something sounding greater than whatever it's attached to. We all know ordinary people with regal sounding names. Ordinary, though, with regards to automobiles, is an ever moving target. Had this car been introduced ten years prior it would have been a watershed. As a 2005 model, though, it was just another car. Just another car in a market that had begun it's slow but steady shift away from sedans towards cross overs. 

To its credit, the "Five Hundred" was about as good as a car can get ten years ago. Spacious, airy, comfortable, with available all wheel drive and thrifty on fuel especially when equipped with the 3.0 liter V-6. The Five Hundred also rode, handled and performed with sparkling aplomb compared to what it replaced. 

Again, even by 2004/2005, the market was filled with intelligently designed, well built cars like this. So, when everything around you is great, how do you stand out? Do something different or better. In the new car market, that usually means stand out styling. That's were, apparently, Ford fell down on itself with this car. 

At least that 's what clinics revealed to Ford since the disappointing sales had to be explained somehow. From a high of of almost 108,000 "Five Hundred's sold in 2005, that's not a number to exactly crow about, to a low of 35,000 just two years later, it was obvious Ford had a dud on their hands. To put sales figures in perspective, not five years prior, Ford was selling more than 300,000 Taurus' a year. That Taurus, incidentally, couldn't hold a candle to this car but it was far less expensive. A well equipped 2000 Taurus went out the door for around $20,000. A 2005 "Five Hundred"? About $28,000. 

Ford ditched the "Five Hundred" moniker for "Taurus" for the last two years of this car's production run of 2008 and 2009. Sales remained stagnant.

I, for one, really like this car and wouldn't have a problem having one. This a lot of car that you can get these days for relatively little money. 

1979 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta - Italian for "Awesome"

Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta's are another one of those "you either get these things or you don't" scenarios. Perhaps it's because I was a kid when these came out in 1979 and I bought into everything Camaro back then. A luxury themed and tinged Camaro? Why not? 

Not knowing any better, I thought there was no tangible difference between one of these and a Z28. A Camaro was a Camaro. Little did I know that the Camaro Berlinetta, new for 1979 and replacing the "Type LT" in the Camaro lineup, was targeted at...women.

Strong enough for a man but made for a woman? Umm, ok. If they say so. The Berlinetta was  Chevrolet's attempt to have a Camaro for everyone even if, in practice, a luxury Camaro was pitted directly at the Monte Carlo. When you have nearly 60 % of the market, you can do whatever you want, right?

The Berlinetta was, in essence, a rebadged "Type LT". A tad plusher interior than what was offered on other Camaros, more sound insulation and an exclusive suspension that gave Berlinetta a "supple ride".  You say "supple" I say "squishy". 

For 1979 a Berlinetta could be had with a god's green earth, 170 horsepower, 350 V-8 like this. However, for 1980 and 1981 things got snoozy when the 350 became exclusive to the Z28 leaving Berlinetta with nothing more powerful than an optional 155 horsepower 305. Chevy's new for 1980 229 cubic inch V-6 making 115 horsepower was standard. They even offered a 120 horsepower, 267 V-8 for people who had to have a V-8 but wanted V-6 mileage.  Note, no A/C compressor. 

I still love these big old sexy hulks and I kind of miss those days when I believed everything that I saw and people said. "Berlinetta" might be Italian for "small saloon" but to my inner 14 year old, it still means "awesome". 

2013 Ford Taurus SHO - No Wonder CUV's Are Taking Over

Ford resurrected the hallowed "SHO" moniker when they debuted their all new Taurus in 2009 as a 2010 model. With 365 horsepower from a twin turbocharged (Ecoboost) V-6 and AWD, this SHO is a formidable performer. 

Ford has a big problem - their Ford Taurus, which is a really big car and as is arguably their flagship, is not selling well. That's being kind, it's selling terribly. 

Taurus is latin for, "The Bull".  

Through October of this year Ford has moved less than 42,000 Taurus'; that's about as many Camrys as Toyota sells in a month. Granted that's a good month and, sorry, that's a slight exaggeration but it illustrates a point - the Taurus is a dud. A big, fat, ugly, overwrought dud that is oddly enough, a very good car. Especially an SHO with all-wheel drive. For the record Toyota has sold 361,000 Camry's this year. Honda, incidentally, has moved 295,000 Accords.

SHO is for "Super High Output". Ecoboost refers to Ford's series of turbocharged engines. 

Chevrolet isn't exactly setting the full-size sedan market on fire either with their very dense looking and almost as ugly Impala, but they are selling more of them than Ford is selling Tauruses. Roughly 100,000 so far this year compared to not even 50,000 Taurus's - if you also count Lincoln's Taurus, the "MK-S". Come to think of it, we have to wonder about how many Impala sales are fleet sales too.

 

There was a time when the Ford Taurus was the best-selling car in America. 

Meanwhile across the hall, Ford has sold 295,000 Fusions over the same period of time. Chevrolet has sold 171,000 Malibu's. Hmmm, what's going on?

This is the fourth generation of the vaunted "SHO" and the first one since 1999. The first SHO debuted in 1989. 

 

What's going on is that IF buyers are going to go for a sedan, they want them more compact than beasts like this Taurus and the Chevrolet Impala. In fairness, we shouldn't compare Fusions, Malibu's, Camry's and Accords to the Taurus and Impala since they're different classes of automobiles, but the sales differences are worth taking note of.

Taurus will be redesigned for 2016 and will resemble their far more popular (and smaller) Fusion.  

With cars like the Taurus and Impala, is it any wonder that stylish CUV's are taking over?