1984 Chevrolet Corvette - Just A Car

 

  

When my wife and I were shopping for a Corvette a couple of years ago I was amazed at how relatively inexpensive 1984-1996 or "C-4" Corvettes were. Especially the earlier "C-4's like this '84 that had an absurd asking price of just $4995. Incidentally, "C" is for "Corvette" and the corresponding number denotes the car's "generation".

 

  

The values of C-4's are amazing considering what strong performers the cars are compared to the "flying dildo" "C-3's" of 1968-1982 infamy. So, if C-4's are so affordable and are such great performers then why are they so cheap?

  

When we were shopping for our Corvette, btw we ended up with a flying dildo, red on red 1977, I found this 1984 Corvette that save for a well worn interior, was in very good condition. What's more, I was very impressed with the car's performance. Fast with great brakes, strong handling and easy to drive,  this '84 was a great car especially for the asking price of around five grand. Certainly not chump change for a thirty year old used domestic but fairly little money for a Corvette. However, my older son scoffed at it. "Doesn't look like a Corvette", he told me.

 

On the same lot was a beat to death 1979 Corvette that my son couldn't take his eyes off of. "Dad! Now, that's a Corvette" he said. No matter how hard I tried to convince him of how superior the '84 was, he'd have none of it. "That blue (the '84) Corvette is just a car", he said over and over.

 

There's no arguing with a 16 year old of course but I could see his point. While that 1984 Corvette was a tremendous amount of car for the money it lacked the visceral appeal that even that beat up '79 had in droves. All of a sudden I was 16 again and looking at both of the cars I got exactly what my son was referring to. The '84 and therefore all "C-4's" just weren't cool enough; it was just another car.

 

The C-4's, especially the 1984-1991's, were also dogged by quality issues. They're problematic, complicated and expensive to repair. A bad car then is just a crappy old car now. If you're so inclined, get a 1992-1996 C-4. You'll pay more for one than a 1984-1991 C-4 in comparable condition but they're screwed together much better and they're holding their value.

 

 

Now, if I could just make my C-3 perform like a C-4 without ruining the way it looks, I'd have the perfect Corvette.

1979 Datsun 280 ZX - Not Porsche or a Corvette

In the 1970's, two gas shortages, rising insurance premiums, an endlessly sluggish economy and government mandated restrictions on emissions and safety sucked most of the fun out of  automobiles sold in the United States. While Porsche and the Chevrolet Corvette offered some glimmer of light, they were extreme in terms of performance and/or price. Datsun's Z cars of 1970-1978, however, were a wonderful combination of performance, comfort and price and offered something that neither Porsche and especially Corvette did not; meticulous build quality and reliability. The Datsun 240, 260 and original 280 Z's proved you could almost have it all and Datsun sold 40,000-60,000 of them a year consistently. That's about as many Corvettes as Chevrolet sold and far more cars than Porsche sold in the United States in a year back then. While the new for 1979 "ZX" was substantially less sporty than it's 1970-1978 forebears, build quality and reliability was as great as ever. However and surprisingly so, going on thirty seven years later, based on resale value, that fact makes little to no difference now.

Therein lies the rub with buying an old car whether for pleasure or as an investment - it's all about the car and what it represents. Datsun Z's were heralded for their reliability but chastised for Ferrari knock off styling. Corvettes were Corvettes and Porsches? Well, even us hard boiled Corvette fans have to admit that there is no substitute for Porsche. Anyway, buyers of old cars don't care or rarely care about how reliable or unreliable an old car was or is; it's not going to be used as a daily driver anyway so what's the difference. It's that ambivalence towards reliability that will drive up the value of late 1970's Corvettes, for example and being the owner of a '77 I sure hope so, while pristine Datsun 280ZX' like this one founder or remain stagnant. This mint 1979 ZX has an asking price of $10,000 - less than what a '79 Corvette would retail for in similar condition. It's a mystery as why that is too but the reality of the matter is - it's true; Datsun Z's don't hold their value.

Case in point regarding the ambivalence towards these cars, several years ago, Nissan, Datsun's parent company, attempted to sell factory refurbished old Z's in Nissan showrooms. That went over about as well as selling coffee at the beach in summertime. Again, why?

Might be...because at the end of the day, the Datsun Z, as good a car as it was, just never had the appeal of America's sports car, the Corvette. Especially the ridiculous C3's like my piece of crap, always breaking down, can't handle to save it's life, '77 that I adore. Sorry, beat me at the track all day long, Z car, never break down on your owner and be perfect at everything, I've got you beat where it counts every time.

You're also not a Porsche.







 

Red Camaro - Nope. Still Red.

I've never been crazy about the handling of our 1996 Camaro. The ride is pleasant but the handling always felt a little loosey goosey, as if it wasn't all there. What I thought was a supple, compliant ride at first, especially compared to my punishing Z28, grew tiresome since a car that doesn't handle well is a chore to drive.

Turns out the handling really wasn't all there because the front sway bar, or stabilizer or whatever you call this thing was broken and here on the passenger side, it wasn't even connected to the car. I bought a set of links about a year ago in a well intentioned attempt to bolt thing back on but it did little to help since half of the link on the bar was broke off on this side. I don't know if the old link broke off when the sway bar snapped or someone removed it; not that it mattered. I knew the sway bar had to go.

OEM sway bars for our car are hard to find and they're expensive. The parts counter at the local Chevrolet dealership wanted $300+ for it (if they could find it) and online they usually come part of a kit that runs almost $500. Rick's Camaro's offers complete with fresh links and bushings for $200. Still, I thought that was still kind of a lot of money.

Luckily, I have a yard here in Cleveland that is wonderful to do business with. No matter what I've needed over the last couple of years they've been able to get for me or, there's been times they've been quite candid in telling when I should forego used parts and go with new. Candor is part of great customer service.

It took them about a week to find this rusty old thing that they told me does have a minor hairline crack in the right side. Not uncommon with these things since they're hollow, brittle and old. I rolled the dice and took it home.

Removal and installation was pretty straight forward. I also bought a set of new links and bushings for both sides. I torqued everything down to 75 foot pounds and took the car out for extended spin.

Right from the getgo I could tell my efforts were successful. Not only did the car ride taughter, the handling was nimble, crisp. Well, nimbler and crisper. There's no confusing the handling of our red Camaro in the best of circumstances with that of a new Corvette.

I came home after the test drive proudly crowing to my wife that my Sunday afternoon flat on my back removing and replacing the sway bar was a huge success. Again, straight forward work but fairly time consuming. Add in the time that I spend shopping for the sway bar and buying a couple of special sockets for the job and this whole thing took me a substantial six hours or so to complete. All worth it in my humble opinion since I found the car to be so much more fun to drive.

Later in the week I asked my son if he noticed anything different about the car after he drove it for several days. "Nope," he said, "still red".

The Future of Car Sales In North America - Say Goodbye to "The Car".

 

This is a picture of ten vehicles parked outside the gym I go to in Westlake, Ohio, a western suburb of Cleveland. This seemingly harmless swath of transportation appliances represents the seismic shift in consumer tastes in "automoibles" over the last ten years.

 

Look closely and you will notice that 7 of them are vehicles that could not be categorized as "cars".

Red Camaro - Gone Fishing

 

Some men fish on the weekends while others play golf. Other bowl or play cards, hit the slots, the track etc. My weekend "indulgence" is attempting to keep my fleet of ancient automobiles running without it costing me an arm and a leg.   

 

My fishing trip this weekend was to replace the front rotors and pads on the 1996 Chevrolet Camaro my wife and I bought a couple of years ago for our teenage sons to use. We love the little car but there are significant trade offs using a now twenty year old car as a daily driver. Those tradeoffs being constant problems and replacing wear out items, like the brakes, that should have been replaced thousands of miles ago.

 

Replacing the front brakes on a 1993 vintage, Generation III Camaro is straight forward. Remove the two, 3/8 inch hex bolts from the calipers, pull the caliper off the rotor and replace the pads inside the caliper - oddly there is no caliper bracket on these cars - pull off and replace the rotor. Easy. Well, on the right side it was easy. The left side was one of the most challenging things I've done. The culprit, rust. Lots of rust.

 

 

After two hours of pounding on both sides of the rotor with my five pound sledge hammer and breaking a large, steering wheel puller type device I rented from Autozone in the process, I decided to throw in the towel and pull the wheel hub that holds the rotor onto the car. My thought was that I'd replace the hub along with the rotor. While the hub, which also holds the ABS assembly, would run me another $90 or so, I'd still be way ahead of what a shop would charge me.

 

 

Before I bought the hub, though, I thought it best to drench the inside of the rusty hub and rotor and let it sit over night on my workbench. Sure enough, it all came apart with additional love taps from my five pounder the next morning.

 

 

Onto the next fishing trip.

Pink Cadillac's - Blame it on Elvis

  

As famous as pink Cadillac's are in song, film and the cosmetics industry, it's ironic that Cadillac never sold that many of them. In fact, they only offered a shade of pink they called "Mountain Laurel" in 1956 and 1957 and it didn't sell well. So, where did all the hoopla surrounding pink Cadillac's come from?

Blame it on Elvis Presley. Elvis bought this aftermarket painted pink, 1954 Cadillac for his band to use in March of 1955; 9 months before the release of his first hit record, "Heartbreak Hotel". As Elvis' star quickly rose and every facet of his life became literally bigger than life, his taste in cars became famous as well.

Elvis actually had two pink Cadillac's before he became an international superstar. After his first one was destroyed in a car fire, he replaced it with this light blue, 1955 Fleetwood 60. He had such a penchant for his first pink Cadillac that he had a friend paint it pink for him. That shade of pink became known as, "Elvis Rose". 

Elvis later gave the car to his mother. It's on permanent display at "Graceland", Elvis' home in Memphis, Tennessee. It's subtle, but take note that "Elvis Rose" was a slightly darker "pink" than GM's "Mountain Laurel" is. Yup, that's my boys with the car at Graceland in the summer of 2007. 

There is no correlation, however, between Elvis' pink Cadillac's and the pink Cadillac's of Mary Kay cosmetics fame. The story behind the relationship between the cosmetics giant and pink Cadillacs dates back to 1967 when Ms. Mary Kay Ash, founder of Mary Kay cosmetics of Dallas, Texas, wanted to treat herself to a new Lincoln and have it painted the color of her company's compact cosmetic cases. When a salesman at a Lincoln dealership in Dallas told her to "go home and bring back her husband", Ms. Ash went to a Cadillac dealership and bought a new 1968 Cadillac instead. What's more, the Cadillac dealership in Fort Worth where she bought the car painted it the since retired, "Mountain Laurel" at her request. While "Mountain Laurel" is a considerably lighter shade of pink than her cosmetics cases are, Ms. Ash was quite happy with her pink Cadillac. When a number of Mary Kay sales representatives also bought Cadillac's and had them painted pink, or "Mountain Laurel", Ms. Ash began giving her highest performing sales reps their own pink Cadillac's custom painted by General Motors.

Since 1970, there have been more than 22,000 Mary Kay pink Cadillac's and there are approximately 1,300 in use today. The cars, which are leased for 24 months, are repainted by GM something other than "Mountain Laurel" before they're sent to auction. Today Cadillac's "Mountain Laurel" shade is exclusive to Mary Kay.

Bruce Springsteen would be the first to tell you that the B side to his 1984 hit, "Dancing In The Dark", was not about a car, Elvis or cosmetics. Springsteen says the song, which he claims to have written in, ahem, 15 minutes was, "a song about the conflict between worldly things and spiritual health, between desires of the flesh and spiritual ecstasy."  That said, the song's obvious metaphor would have been even more egregious had it not been for the pink Cadillac's of Elvis and Mary Kay. 

The song was a minor hit for Springsteen while the late Natalie Cole's version of it was a top 10 hit in 1987. The video for the song featured a 1957 Cadillac Coupe deVille resplendent in historically correct "Mountain Laurel".

The legend of Pink Cadillac's and "The King of Rock and Roll" came full circle when Clint Eastwood insisted that the car central to the 1989 film he starred in with Bernadette Peters be an automotive tribute to his late friend Elvis. However, rather than use a historically correct 1956 or 1957 Cadillac like the producers of the Natalie Cole video did, they painted a white Series 62, 1959 Cadillac pink, or "Mountain Laurel". 

That car sold at auction in 2014 for more than $83,000. And no doubt, Elvis, Aretha Franklin, Bruce Springsteen, Natalie Cole, Mary Kay Ash and Clink Eastwood were quite pleased. 

1976 Chrysler Newport Custom - New Yorker All The Way

Much like expensive homes, people who purchase expensive cars want people to know that they spent a lot of money. A luxury car that touted value as one of its selling points is not unlike marketing a top of the line home in a down market zip code. As nice a home that it can be, an expensive house in a cheap area will never be, ultimately, what it is attempting to emulate. Let's not even discuss resale values. 

What Chrysler was attempting to emulate in the 1970's was Cadillac and in my opinion, they nailed it with their 1975-1978 New Yorker; the big Chryslers being more handsome "Cadillacs" than actual Cadillacs. Newports were mostly a de-contented New Yorkers much in the same way a Cadillac Calais was a de-contented deVille. The biggest difference between the Newport and New Yorker was the availability of luxury options like leather seating areas and a 440 V-8 (not sure if that was a good thing or not seeing it was the mid '70s'). This being a Newport Custom, you got fender skirts and the New Yorker coupe's fetching, half landau, "reverse" vinyl top; 1976 the first year for "opera windows" on the big Chryslers. You wouldn't be the only person to think this a New Yorker much like people who don't know can't tell a Calais from a deVille. 

Impressing people with your Chrysler New Yorker was one thing; impressing them with a Newport? Better hope they didn't know the difference or you just bought the car because you liked it. For similar money back then, money spent on a domestic luxury car anyway, in 1976 if you wanted to impress the Joneses, you bought a Cadillac not a facsimile of one. The best money spent, back then regardless of nameplate snobbery, domestically was on a loaded Chevrolet Caprice. 

Newports weren't always such obvious de-contented New Yorkers. This lovely 1968 Newport coupe was its own, distinctive albeit less expensive model. While it shares styling themes with the more luxurious and formal New Yorker (and Imperial) of the same vintage, there's no denying that it was Newport.

This big ole boy? No matter what you call it it's a New Yorker all the way. Chrysler built this car through 1978 and moved "Newport" to their abortive B body platform in 1979. Newports got put to pasture after 1981.