1953 Ford F100 - Back Where I Come From

It took my moving away from Greater New York to understand the obvious that "New York" is different from the rest of the country. One of many differences is middle America's love of pickup trucks. Back where I come from no one owned one who really didn't need one. Here in Cleveland, Ohio, which is a microcosm of everything good and bad in this country "between the coasts", folks who don't even need pickups buy them; for reasons that still escape me. A prime example of that mid-American love of pickups is this 1953 Ford F100 that's been sliced, diced, hacked, welded and chopped into something that would have Crazy Henry spinning in his grave.



Every car or truck has a story and it's safe to say that the actual story can't be as interesting as what you think it would or could be. I have no idea why someone with the welding, soldering and fabrication chops that this person has, not to mention their mechanical acuity, would morph this old Ford so it could be "resto-modded" with a Chevrolet V-6. Obviously, based on the cataloging of the build, it was done on purpose. Again, the reasons why have to pale in comparison to why we think this was done.

Rather than mull about the why, the facts are this person merged a 1985 Chevrolet S-10 with a 1953 Ford F100. They didn't just modify the frame of the F100 to hold the big Chevy V-6 either. They took about every mechanical bit they could from the S-10 and morphed the ladder frame of the Ford so that everything could bolt in or on. While spectacular, this build does beg the question about why Ford Ranger components of this vintage weren't used. Given a choice, I would have swapped the S-10 guts into a Chevrolet 3100 of the same era but that's me, Chevy guy at heart.

 

 

My "blue collar" genes throbbing with envy not so much because I want this truck but because, deep down inside, I want to be able to do stuff like this. And do it right. That's not to say this wasn't done "right" although I'd have kept it as much Ford as possible. Chevy and Ford folks get as testy about their vehicles as the Hatfields and McCoys did fighting over whatever it was they were fighting over. This would be fine as a vehicle for the farm, or what they call in the Dallas area a "deer lease", but if you're going to try and sell it, and for as much as $7,500, fans of either are probably going to have an issue with this.

 

I've expressed to my family my won ton desire to own a small, regular cab, short bed pickup. While I happen to really like their proportions, regardless of make, I'd like to have one not so much as a daily driver but so I can do "stuff". We could then get rid of our aging Chevrolet Tahoe while not sacrificing any of its wonderful practicality. They look at me like I have three heads, of course. My wife, in particular, taking me down to earth reminding me that Lowes and  Home Depot offer perfectly good pickups to rent for like $20 an hour.

 

New York might be different from the rest of the country but the Midwest apparently is rubbing off on me. The Craigslist listing for this is gone but if it pops up again I'll update this. This guy was asking $7,500.

1966 Cadillac Eldorado - Less Than What It Is

Back in the 1970's a "Cadillac Eldorado" was a 5,400 pound, front wheel drive, parade float like this 1976 "triple white" convertible. Although priced considerably more than a deVille or Calais, it wasn't necessarily any better an automobile. For what it was worth, it wasn't any better than a Chevrolet Impala but then again back then these cars weren't so much about being better automobiles as much as they were props to make their owners appear to be better off. Its unique styling and front wheel drive layout at least made it significantly different than anything else Cadillac offered; it wouldn't have been far fetched to say they were "special". Even if by the mid 1970's, Cadillac had long abandoned marketing the Eldorado's front wheel drive as anything truly noteworthy.

There was a time, though, back during the Eisenhower, Kenndy and Johnson administrations that the Cadillac Eldorado was merely a trim option and nothing really noteworthy above and beyond a "run of the mill" Coupe deVille convertible. Our well worn subject here is a 1966 and is for sale on ebay out in sun drenched Los Angeles with a starting price of $10,000.  

After the splendor that was the 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Seville, Eldorado went through GM's infamous debasement process that pushed at one time lofty models down on the pricing ladder. Coming of age with the frilly cake toppers that I did you'll have to forgive me if I happen to think a "Cadillac Eldorado" should be something more than just a Cadillac with different chrome accents. Interestingly, while all Eldorado's after 1960 where convertibles, Cadillac also offered a convertible Coupe deVille. So, what did a buyer get with an Eldorado they couldn't get with a Coupe deVille convertible? Aside from a wood veneer lined interior nothing much.

First introduced in 1953 to commemorate Cadillac's golden 50th anniversary, the car was named after El Dorado, the lost city of gold, the Eldorado was originally Cadillac's most expensive and exclusive model. The '53's, in fact, where a factory custom model that cost nearly twice that of a Series 62 sedan.  

The suicide door equipped 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Seville, at more than $13,000, was the most expensive Cadillac ever manufactured and sold. Problem was, as luxurious and opulent as it was, there were few takers. And, just like that, starting in 1958, what was once a boutique automobile became nothing more than a Coupe deVille with a bit more chrome. Cadillac, after all, at its most elemental, being a luxury car for the bourgeois. 



When General Motors relaunched their full size B and C bodies for 1965 they kept the Eldorado nameplate with one caveat - Eldorado became a submodel of their Fleetwood series. Going back to 1958 it was trim option on the deVille. Nothing more than semantics, really, but Cadillac marketed Fleetwood as being grander deVilles; the sedans rode on longer wheelbases too. Thing is, the Cadillac Fleetwood Eldorado wasn't a two door Fleetwood, it was, again, a two door deVille. Yes, this is genuine wood veneer - something only offered on Fleetwoods. Fancy.

 

In any event, by 1965, Cadillac was deep in the development process for the 1967 Eldorado which was indeed a totally different automobile than a deVille, Fleetwood or Calais. This car was literally a placeholder until that car was ready; similar to what Buick did in 1977-1978 tarting up a LeSabre with a Park Avenue's interior and called it a "Riviera" until the new front wheel, E body Riviera was ready come 1979.

While pristine Eldorado's of this vintage have asking prices of more than $50,000, the starting price of $10,000 for this car is vexing. Everything looks better in pictures too so you have to wonder how bad this thing really is. It appears it needs everything. I'm surprised it runs. Yes, that's a whole in the floor board. 

Knowing what I know of the car crazy culture that is Hollywood and L.A., you are what you drive and it's better to drive something like this rather than some Camry or Explorer. The worn out, vagabond appeal of a beat up old block long Cadillac, while lost on me, no doubt appealing to a wannabee star or starlet who got a sizeable check for that appearance they did in a pilot. Hope there's more of that mailbox money coming, honey. Holes in the floor boards, no carpeting and a crumbling dash bad are all fixable but it's gonna cost you.  Two grand for the floor boards, couple grand more for a new top. New dash pad? Another thousand maybe? To do it right you should pull the windshield out. All this gets really pricey. I'd figure a good $8,500 to get the interior and top done. Better still, let's bank on ten grand. Anything left over you can plow into something else like the body and engine.

You're in deep for at last $20,000 to fix this bomb up right and that's on top of the $10,000 you dropped to buy it in the first place. And then all you have is an ill handling, underpowered, rattle trap gas guzzler you'd be afraid to take to Hollywood and Highland, Another example of where it's always better to buy something that's already been restored rather than pay for it yourself. Could you get your money back? It's Hollywood so anything is possible. No doubt there's a starlet or two looking for an interesting prop to make themselves appear to be more than what they really are. Funny that they would do so with something that's actually less than what it is. 

1984 Cadillac Coupe DeVille - Aero Pixie Dust

I loved the aero pixie dust Cadillac sprinkled on their 1980 deVilles and Fleetwoods and in particular what they did with the Coupe deVille. While still angular and undoubtedly "Cadillac", those angles were softened making the design more cohesive and making the cars appear larger; size being very important to Cadillac buyers back then. However, the "updates" under the hood, indirectly mandated by government fuel economy standards, where less than enthralling.

Those federally mandated fuel economy standards coming in the wake of the 1973-74 OPEC embargo. "Corporate Average Fuel Economy", also known as "CAFE", first established in 1975, set the average new vehicle fuel economy, as weighted by sales, that manufacturers fleet had to achieve. The first CAFE regulations went into effect in 1978 where manufacturers had to achieve a CAFE of 18 miles per gallon. It increased to 19 for 1979, 20 for 1980 and 22 mpg for 1981; quite a jump in just four years. While The Big Three had already either made their makes and models smaller and lighter or were well on their way towards doing so, it would take more than downsizing for them to achieve the fuel economy averages the government ordered.

That meant a change to computer controlled engine management systems and ultimately to fuel injection.  GM's first real mass market attempt at fuel  injection was in 1976 when Cadillac modified the Oldsmobile Rocket 350 engine with a fuel injection system they co-developed with Bendix and Bosh.  Consisting of a throttle body, 8 fuel injectors on fuel rails and controlled by an analog computer, while far from perfect, it operated much better than the Rochester mechanical fuel injection system GM experimented with between 1957 and 1962. General Motors "digitized" the computer, what they called the "ECM" (electronic control module) for 1980 and by 1981 had enabled the version of it they offered on Cadillacs to control not just fuel injection, but to turn cylinders on and off depending on vehicle load.

Chevrolet and Pontiac had first offered fuel injection in the late 1950's but it was expensive and its crude electronics made it problematic. Chrysler also offered a fuel injection system in the late 1950's that was even more troublesome. Ford waited until the late 1970's to offer fuel injection on anything they manufactured.

What they called the "V8-6-4", theoretically, worked via solenoid deactivation of the engine's rocker arms and different fuel mapping when in four and six-cylinder operation. While it improved fuel economy and helped GM hit the government's lofty 22 mpg goal for 1981, particularly when moving into and out of six-cylinder mode, the engine stumbled, bogged and vibrated harshly. Rather unbecoming of any automobile to say nothing of a Cadillac. Most owners of 1981 Cadillac's V8-6-4's either had the system turned off or replaced with a carburetor. For 1982, rather than refine the V8-6-4, Cadillac replaced it with an engine even more disastrous than the V8-6-4.

Now, the answer to the question as to why Cadillac didn't simply install the Oldsmobile 307 V-8 or Chevrolet 305 in the deVille and Fleetwood after the V8-6-4 debacle requires us to understand GM's myriad divisional brand essence. In retrospect the practice was ludicrous but to help distinguish, for instance, a Chevrolet from a Buick and Pontiac from a Cadillac, all of GM's divisions designed and built their own engines. Regardless of the fact that all the divisions, with the exception at times of Cadillac, shared so much sheet metal with each other that it was difficult to tell a Chevrolet from an Oldsmobile. With these self-imposed restrictions, though, and with the V8-6-4 drowning in recalls, what Cadillac did next, on paper at least, was quite clever; in practice it nearly killed them off.

Starting in 1982, Cadillac took the little V-8 they were developing for their front wheel drive "big" cars, slated for introduction originally in 1983, and adapted it to rear wheel drive. They called the engine the "HT4100" and it was a disaster. Making only 135 horsepower, 190 foot pounds of torque and having to move a two ton automobile, drivability issues were the least of the problems that buyers had with the "HT4100"; "HT" incidentally was for "high technology". The problem was the HT's aluminum block and iron head design. This unusual design was prone to intake manifold gasket failure due to scrubbing of the bi-metal interface. Its aluminum oil pump also failed regularly, cam bearings gave way with no notice and weak bolts pulled their aluminum threads from the block. All this meant more recalls. Recalls meant more bad P.R. for Cadillac. While it's been said that any P.R. is good P.R., with regards to Cadillac in the early 1980's, the problems with the HT was just another gut punch.



Remarkably, Cadillac continued to refine the HT over the years eventually making it into a very good engine. The last Cadillac to be powered by an HT left factories at the end of the 1995 model year replaced by another head gasket devouring Cadillac  fiasco, the "Northstar".

By 1984, Cadillac had engineered out most of the issues with the HT4100 and our lovely subject here was originally built with one. While Cadillac made the HT4100 more reliable, they never improved drivability since they only marginally increased the amount of horsepower and torque it made. Shame too; these were such a pretty cars. While most domestic luxury cars in the early 1980's were under powered these big Cadillac's with the tiny HT were particularly slow and unresponsive. Nothing that an engine swap couldn't fix though, right?

Well, ask and ye shall receive. I don't know what I was searching Craigslist for recently but low and behold, down in Columbus, I came across this listing for a 1984 Coupe deVille powered by a mid-1990's, GM LT-1. What's more, it looks professionally done and looks complete. The writer of this ad, https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/d/1984-caddilac-coupe-deville/6295155023.html, claims the transmission's been swapped too; no idea about the rear axle being updated to something more stout than what was originally stock. The ad also claims the engine is from a 1995 Corvette. I highly doubt that and points off for credibility for claiming so if it isn't. This looks more like the LT-1 that was found in the Cadillac Fleetwood, Buick Roadmaster and Chevrolet Caprice and Impala SS of that vintage. It's more than just a matter of semantics to say that this is a "Corvette" engine; there's enough different between the Corvette LT-1 and this LT-1 to say that this engine should have been called something else. Still, this LT-1 was a robust and powerful engine. Especially compared to the HT.

So, why am I not running down to Columbus to at least kick the tires on this sexy beast? Well, for starters, Columbus is a haul from Cleveland and while this car is listed in the Columbus Craigslist it's actually about an hour east of Columbus which means it's close to three hours from me. That's a precious weekend day shot just to joyride, with little to no intent of buying, a hopped up thirty some odd year old Cadillac that has some middling issues. The speedomoter doesn't work, the vinyl top is shot and look at that right front fender in front of the tire; rust bubbles. All fixable but, at least with regards to the vinyl top and fender, expensive to fix. And who knows what else there is wrong with this thing. Again, she's 30+ years old.

There's also the asking price of $6,000. That's a lot for this car. I mean, a ton. It makes some sense, though, when you think about all that you would be getting with it. Although the transplanted engine is "just' an LT-1 and not a far superior LS, the upside is the HT4100 has been removed. From these pictures this could be a pretty good $1,800 car if it had the HT4100 and closer to $2,500 if not $3,000 if the top and body was perfect. Factor what it would run you to swap out the HT and drop in something better would run at least $2,000 if not $3,000. An LS-1? $5,000-$6,000. At least. What's it they say about buying someone else's project rather than pay for it yourself? Thing is with this car, at six grand, it appears you'd be paying for all the freight. This car is no bargain.

Like almost all older GM small blocks, the Generation II LT-1 gets leaky as its gets older. Again, fixable but at a cost. The GM LS series is so much better but then, again, if this car had an LS it probably would have an asking price three if not four grand higher. Hit that link above and have at it. I'll be jealous as hell you did too especially if you can talk them down to close to $4,000 as this car is just about as perfect a "1980" aero pixie dust Coupe deVille as you're ever going find.

From 1986-1991, Cadillac offered the Oldsmobile 307 cubic inch V-8 in their rear wheel drive Fleetwood Brougham. 

2017 Ford Explorer - Transcendental

 

I had no idea what a big vehicle these "modern" Explorers are. I say modern because Ford has offered some sort of Explorer SUV since 1990 and up until 2010 they were always a mid size, truck based, body on frame SUV. That all changed for model year 2011 when Ford moved the nameplate to its Volvo sourced, car-based, cross-over utility platform. This new chassis enabled Ford to design a vehicle that's all but as big as my wife's 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe. Almost-as-big. It's a good a good half foot less tall, an inch less long and roughly an inch less wide. Still, the Explorer is huge; especially inside. It's cavernous. It's also, thanks to its cross-over platform, roughly 600 pounds lighter. 

 

 

V-8 loving me was disappointed to find the "base" 2.3 liter Ecoboost in line 4 under the hood of our subject here and not at least Ford's lusty 290 horsepower 3.5 liter DOHC V-6. Disappointed was I up until I started my elongated test drive. That loaf of bread they call "Ecoboost" hauls ass; this thing is freaking fast as hell. So fast, in fact, that I had a hard time staying under the speed limit. A quick check of the specs on the Ecoboost engine in our Explorer shows that it makes 280 horsepower and 310 foot pounds of torque. Oh, mommy. My Tahoe with it's mighty 5.3 liter "LS" V-8 makes 290 horsepower and 330 foot pounds.

 

Where the Ecoboost engine comes apart, in my opinion, compared to my Tahoe's V-8, is that acceleration is a furious, mad rush whereas the Tahoe's power is smooth and linear. Non jerking starts are at first an exercise in futility until you get used to it. Stab it as you would a non-turbo car and you run the risk of getting whiplash. It's fun at first but quickly gets annoying. Gas mileage estimate for the Ecoboost is a middling 22 mpg. I get about 17-18 with my Tahoe. So, the Explorer Ecoboost is fast and thirsty. This is progress? I shudder to think what kind of gas mileage the twin turbo, 365 horsepower V-6 gets. I had these same issues with the Ford Fusion Ecoboost my family and I rented a couple of years ago.

 

The interior, again, is cavernous, the fit and finish gorgeous. The trim was very tasteful for any vehicle let alone a base model. Ten, fifteen years ago this would have been an out of the park luxury automobile. Nowadays it's fairly run of the mill. If there's anything I'm missing out on driving older vehicles it's today's interiors. That and convenience features like blue tooth and a back up camera. Our Explorer here wasn't overly equipped with nanny's you don't need like lane change alerts and automatic braking. Some would knock that and site lower resale value. I just look at those bells and whistles as stuff that's going to break.



Despite its size and vast rear passenger and cargo areas behind the wheel the Explorer felt uncomfortably tight. The "dead pedal" is intrusive since it's part of the left wheel well. What? Yup. C'mon, Ford. You did so much right with this thing. Why fall down with that detail - men will be driving this thing too. My right leg kept hitting the steering column too but I'd say that was because I like the wheel cocked down low over my lap.

 

The biggest thing that the "modern" Ford Explorer has going for it is that it's transcendental - as much as it is an unabashed update of the dreaded family station wagon of yore it also somehow  co notates wealth and prestige. How these things have been able to that is beyond me. Perhaps, and this is where the generation gap widens, a lot of the old mom mobile image isn't as negatively construed as it once was. While my experience with my parents growing up was a bit of an extreme, seeing that we were at each other's throats constantly, today's (young) parents have an innate sense of family and have no issue with being seen as mommy's and daddy's. That's very nice.  My generation, which skirts the nebulous brick-a-brack between Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers had a somewhat more difficult time with it to say nothing of the Baby Boomer's who all but rejected any semblance of their parents.  Nowadays that's not so much the case. And you could do worse than to be seen as a mom or dad driving a modern Ford Explorer.

 

Cadillac XLR - A Perfectly Good Idea at The Time



I can't look at a 1959 Cadillac and see it for what it was supposed to be as opposed to what it's become. That being a stereotype of '50's cars and at best a subliminal symbol of America's boom years after World War II. What it was supposed to be is anyone's guess but the late Chuck Jordan, GM's Vice President of Design for General Motors from 1986-1992 and the chief engineer of the 1959 Cadillac, said that at the time it seemed like a "perfectly good idea."

 

 

 

Same could be said for the Cadillac XLR. A  badge engineered Cadillac Corvette? C'mon, GM. Really? Really.

 



The XLR will never be construed as being a stereotype of an automobile nor a subliminal anything. It is what it is or was; a drop dead gorgeous two passenger automobile that had some formidable performance chops. Especially when stuffed with a SUPERCHARGED V-8 like our little beast here has.



The idea behind it was for it to be a paradigm-shifting flagship for General Motors downtrodden luxury division. After all, Mercedes Benz has seemingly always had a high faluten two passenger sports coupe, or what some automobilia cognoscenti refer to as "two place" motor car, and such should be on the cover of the brochures of any luxury car maker's literature. Viewed in that context the XLR makes at least some sense and...it seemed like a perfectly good idea at the time. Argue all you want that Cadillac should have been focused on Lexus buyers and not Benz and BMW buyers but I digress. Those that make decisions at Cadillac have never been prone to modest ambitions.



 

In a vacuum this car was a stand-out and most people would be hard pressed to put 2+2 together and surmise it's a C5 Corvette in a tuxedo. It would be on my short list if it wasn't powered by Cadillac's infamous 4.6 liter Northstar V-8 configured for rear wheel drive duty. If I ever got my hands on one of these, and you can get a nice one for a relative song compared to what they stickered for new, I'd drop another ten grand or so on swapping the Northstar for an LS. Might be more than that but then again I'd then have a bullet proof automobile. Might have trouble getting that work order approved through the wife but that's what I'd like to do.

 

Despite it's good looks and prodigious performance capability, especially with the SUPERCHARGED "Northstar", the XLR tanked at the box office. I mean tanked. These things aren't unicorn rare but they're hard to come by.  Shame too since, again, this was one hell of an automobile.

 

 

There are several reasons for the XLR's failure. First and foremost, similar to what GM did with the Allante between 1986-1993, which was a hunk of junk compared to the XLR, they over priced it. A relative bargain, mind you, compared to what GM attempted to target it at but still, at $80,000 a copy this was one expensive Corvette. And a Corvette that, while being subjectively more handsome than a Corvette, doesn't perform as well as one. And powered by an engine with a dubious reputation for unreliability. Incidentally, someone explain to me why GM spent the dough to reconfigure their front wheel drive Northstar engine for this car when the Corvette was using the perfectly wonderful LS?  Would powering this with an LS V8 make it less of a Cadillac? What about the CTS-V? That had an LS. Another example of GM wackiness pre bankruptcy.

Secondly, most people are not car people who accept cars for what they are or are portending to be. If they're looking for some bling-bling in the garage, folks who can swing the payments on something like this are more often than not going to go for something that the neighbors are familiar with. Or would be so instantly enamored of when you tell them what you bought if they're not familiar with it. An example of that would be Jaguar's stupefying XF-S two seater. Oh my, they bought a Jaguar sports car.

If the neighbor's don't know what an XLR is, chances are they'd be none too impressed when you got them up to speed by telling them that it's a Cadillac. Hyundai has the same problem with their Genesis division. You'll get a smirk or two from the snobs next door when you roll up in one of those and tell them, "it's a really nice Hyundai".

You wouldn't have that problem if you just bought a Corvette. Or a Benz. Then again, you'd be spending more money on the Benz. On the other hand, you would have spent far less money on a Corvette and maybe had enough left over to buy a Prius. After all, we buy cars like this just to show off, right? And a Prius makes you look smart and rich at the same time. Win-win.

 

Life's too short to be concerned with bull shit stereotypes, subliminal messages and showing off. If you like this car, like I do, buy it for what it is or was at its most elemental and to hell with resale value and what the damn neighbors think - this is a really nice car. Now that's a perfectly good idea that will stand the test of time. Just find a mechanic willing to do an off beat engine swap.