1981 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 - The Exception To The Rule

I'm of the opinion that the second-generation Chevrolet Camaro, especially the Z28, actually got better looking as Chevrolet dragged its inexplicably long production cycle out over twelve model years. Our subject is a well preserved '81 Z28.
 

 

That would make these cars, built between 1970 and 1981, an exception to my rule that cars rarely get better looking with nipping and tucking of their original design. Designers attempts at freshening things up almost always resulting in botch up's akin to what plastic surgeons did to Meg Ryan's once angelic face.

 

The baubles, the bits, the stripe jobs ad nauseam - somehow, someway they worked on the Camaro. Now, this stuff wasn't for everyone and the definition of "cool" is quite broad, but if you "get this", it didn't get much better. Please, no jokes about mullets. And to hell with the fact that these weren't very good cars.
 

 

The Camaro benefited indirectly from the government's 5 mile per hour safety bumper regulations that started in 1973. General Motors, for the most part, did a great job of complying with the federal requirements as they deftly blended the bumpers into the design of their cars. However, they went one step farther with the Camaro's bumpers - they covered them up with these plasticized, rubber-like flexible bumper covers. Voila. Instant classic. It not only updated the look of the car tenfold, it made it look, dare I say, better. It was also a harbinger of automotive designs of the future - when was the last time you saw a chrome bumper on a car?
 

Another rule these cars are the exception of is they're the rare automobile built after 1972 that's appreciating. It's telling their values are, in general for cars in similar condition, better than that of Corvettes of the same vintage. What's more, owners of Camaros stand a much better chance of selling their car quickly compared to someone trying to sell a Corvette. Trust me on that one. I found this car over the weekend on Autotrader.com, downloaded pictures of it and when I wanted to hyper link the ad for it to this blog, it was gone by late Monday morning.

1967 Chevrolet Chevelle - Beware of Clones

Thirty or so years ago, "clones", which is any lesser model of a car that appears to be a more expensive one, were verboten; you didn't make them let alone buy them. In the last ten, fifteen if not twenty years or so, they've become more acceptable as affordable desirable classics have become harder and harder to come by. Clones are harmless but only to a point. They become troublesome when people start asking the same amount of money for them as the "real" cars they're emulating. Like this 1967 Chevelle SS clone hailing from bucolic Dayton, Ohio. Here's the listing.

Looks to me like someone spent a freaking boatload on restoring this car and is looking to recoup a large part of their investment. Good luck with that, buddy. At least they had the decency to disclose it's a clone - not that they're going to get this "SS" past any self-respecting Chevelle cognoscenti. They might be worse than Corvette people - and we know how anal those people can be.

Up through 1965, Chevrolet was putting "SS" and "Super Sport" badges on everything from Chevy II's to Impala wagons and it meant next to nothing. Yes, there was a 396 engine available on  "Z16" '65 Chevelles but they're rarer than unicorns. "SS" was little more than a trim level akin to "Caprice" being a trim level of Impala and "Malibu" and "300" being levels of the Chevelle. That all changed when Chevrolet made the 396 the exclusive engine of the Chevelle Super Sport starting in 1966.

Available on 1966 and 1967 Chevelles in two states of tune - 325 and 360 (gross) horsepower, those very large and heavy engines gave the Chevelle SS straight line performance akin to its muscle car cousin, the Pontiac GTO. However, the engine here in our '67 Chevelle SS clone is not a 396 - it's not even a 327 - it's a handsomely dressed up 283. Tells me our car here may have been born as a low ball Chevelle 300. So, out my windshield, I see this car as not even a "real clone". Even if this 283 has been hopped up to be as strong if not stronger performer than any 396 could be, quite possible, it's still a Chevelle clone with a 283. 

A 283 car with its original two speed "Power Glide" - ad claims 3 speed Power Glide - sorry - Power Glides were two-speed automatics. There's something to be said for numbers matching but sometimes it's best to package the original running gear with the sale of the car and replace it all with something at least more robust if not modern. An LS1 swap and a modern four or six-speed automatic might make this "SS" worth the asking price. Especially with as nice a restoration job as this thing has gone through. Then again, an LS1 swap would mean this car was actually something more akin to a "resto-mod". Those cars are becoming even more envouge than clones and those are many times worth what folks are asking for them. 



Again, clones are dicey propositions. Had the engine and transmission been upgraded on this SS clone would it make a difference? To me, somewhat - especially if the original engine and transmission come along as part of the package but I still think this car is way over priced and it  makes no sense since it's not even a "real clone" (if that makes sense). It's also historically incorrect as it sits now and the owner wants Chevelle SS concours condition money for it. You can do better. Look the other way.  

Lexus RC 200t - No Matter How Much Things Change

 

In a world now populated by crossover coupes like the Toyota CH-R, it's nice to know that there are cars out there today like this Lexus two-door coupe for us sport coupe lovers to slobber over. I say two-door coupe because these days, much like manufacturers referring to minivans as SUV's, the word "coupe" doesn't necessarily mean "two-door" car or crossover.

The Lexus RC has been around since 2015 and the 200t, our subject is a 2017 model, was around for  2016 and 2017. The RC 200t was the most affordable of the RC's bookending a dizzying if not confusing lineup that had also included the hybrid 300h, the 306 horsepower, 3.5-liter V-6  RC 350 and the 467 horsepower, 5.0-liter V-8 powered RC 500. There was also an RC-F powered by an even higher performing version of the V-8 found in the RC 500. We got all that? Lexus simplified the lineup for 2018 dropping the hybrid and the V-8 engine and moving names around. This car is now known as the RC 300.
 



There's something alluring to me about someone who'd buy the least expensive model of an expensive make; something off-putting at the same time. I applaud the gumption to step out there but not going all the way and getting a more powerful, and yes somewhat more expensive model, makes me wonder why someone whose got the beans to spring for a $40,000+ car would do so and not get the real McCoy. Where they've drawn a line in their own sand is vexing to me.
 



Yes, I have a laundry list of problems with this car and the first one lies under the hood. The RC 200t says, "oh, look at me, I'm edgy" meanwhile this little 2.0 liter turbo engine whispers softly, "but I'm really not".  The problem with the RC 200t is the blasted thing is just too heavy for the engine to haul around with any real modicum of chutzpah. The RC, which is classified as compact, is as portly as it is because its an amalgamation of three different rear wheel drive Lexus'. The front end is from the GS, the middle section is from, of all things, the IS convertible and the rear end is from the IS sedan. Cobbling together parts bin bits and pieces might be cost effective but it almost always results in an automobile that's quite portly if not obese. Even the 306 horsepower RC 350 is not lauded as being a particularly strong performer. Did I mention they got rid of the 467 horsepower V-8 engine for 2018? If you love the lines of the RC, the model to get is a gently used RC 500.



Another problem along with piddling performance is mediocre fuel economy. Expect 18 - 20 on average. Yeah, I know. This isn't the only 2.0-liter turbo powered car that I've experienced that isn't exactly thrifty at the gas pump. Aren't these gee whiz power house engines supposed to be stingy on gas? This is progress? Lumpy performance and shitty mileage - quite the combo. Sign me up. On second thought, I'd rather drive a 1975 Chevy Monte Carlo and save $35,000. Seems to me the Lexus RC 200t is the same type of car. Nice ride, fancy styling, all show and no go. You know what they say about no matter how much things change they remain the same, right?



Another problem I have with this car along with aesthetic issues is image. With a car like this you need to be aware of the signals you're sending out - they can and most likely will be misconstrued. After all, it's not what you meant to say - it's how people interpret it. Snaps to you if sincerely don't care. Most people do. Best you can do is buy this car because you really like it and could care less what people think. Trust me, though. You can't win. People will hate you for driving it and us oh-so-judgmental car snots will think you're a moron for not springing for one with the bigger engine.

 



Finally, as I do with so many cars today, I take issue with the lines on it- all RC's lack that certain "gotta have it" factor. I can't be alone, again, seeing how horrible the sales are for RC's either. Might be the slamming together of different cars to make one but at the same the styling is derivative and fussy. It's more Mighty Morphin Power Ranger whereas I'd be looking for something more subdued and at the same time bad ass. In the fickle world of sport coupe buyers, limited as it is, there are just better choices out there. Go ahead. Judge me.

1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo - Shield And All

Back in the 1970's, "personal luxury cars" ruled the roost similarly to today's crossovers and inexplicably so since they offered a fraction of the practicality of even the four-door sedans they were based on. To say nothing of the station wagons that were offered on the same platform or chassis. Little if nothing more than rolling fashion statements, none of them came to define the personal luxury car craze of the 1970's more than the most over the top styled of them all, the 1973-1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Our delightful subject is a 1975.

If the original Chevrolet Monte Carlo emulated the "suitcase fendered" classics of the Great Gatsby  era the 1973 "update", actually it was more of a complete reboot, took that theme to absurd heights. And, wouldn't you know it, it being the decade that brought us disco and pet rocks, the 1973-1977 "colonnade" Monte Carlo's were incredibly popular. Why? That's a tough question to answer since we're looking in the rearview mirror of a cultural fad that first started to catch on going on fifty years ago. For whatever reason, people just loved the look of the car regardless of what it was attempting to be. Most people don't care about design or architecture per se - they just like what they like regardless of pretense.

Again, in hindsight, personal luxury cars are hard to understand. Big on the outside, small on the inside, not to mention ill handling and sluggish performers, they offered little if anything above and beyond being stylish. Stylish in swivel buckets even if said style was polarizing even back in its day. Personal luxury cars weren't unlike stiletto's - they may be uncomfortable but damn you look good in them. 

If not indirectly, we credit the Ford Motor Company for creating the personal luxury car when they introduced their four-passenger Thunderbird for 1958. GM waited until 1962 to respond with the Pontiac Grand Prix, a not exactly personal sized automobile based on GM's B body, full-size chassis. Buick followed suit in 1963 with the Riviera - which was, ironically, at first intended to be a Chevrolet. Both the Grand Prix and Riviera found relatively small but loyal followings but it wasn't until 1969 when Pontiac launched a new mid-sized Grand Prix that the personal luxury car market really took off. Chevrolet introduced their original Monte Carlo the following year.

Personal luxury cars were also "insurance friendly" since, for the most part, they couldn't perform as well as surcharge inducing muscle cars did, could or portended to. Although Chevrolet offered larger optional engines on the Monte Carlo through 1976, they didn't provide significantly better performance than the smaller engines that were offered.

In many ways, our 1975 Monte Carlo is really a snap shot in time as Chevrolet didn't have anywhere near the success they had with these "big Monte Carlo's" with their new for 1978, drastically downsized successors. Emulating a design that emulated a design, sales were strong at first but they quickly waned eventually taking the entire hard to explain let alone understand personal luxury car market en masse down with it. Shield and all.

1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass - High Fashion

If nostalgia is defined as "a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations", it's certainly not nostalgia that drives my interest in old cars like our bright and cheery, red on white 1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass here. Seeing that I want to go back and relive my childhood with about as much vigor as I have for my urologist sticking his jellied finger up my ass, it's my pure affection for these wonderful cars that fuels my interest in them and nothing else.

When I young, I wasn't alone in thinking these cars were "it" since they were immensely popular and for reasons that candidly defied reason. Back then cars like our lovely Oldsmobile here were the definitive American car. Big but not too big (everything is relative) and featuring styling that was slightly ostentatious if not somewhat benign, the Oldsmobile Cutlass in its myriad iterations was the car that everyone owned, aspired to own or the other manufacturers made knockoffs of. It was comfortable, familiar, handled easily, was simple to operate, made you appear as good as you were or wanted to be and looked great in the parking lot of the supermarket as well as the country club. Especially the oh-so-sweet coupes. 

Crossover sport utility vehicles define us today as an auto nation and it's easy to see why - they're the most stylish vehicles on the road today; any practicality is but a fringe benefit. What's really interesting about not only this Oldsmobile Cutlass coupe but two-door sedans of yore and personal luxury cars like this Cutlass in particular, is that, again, they were immensely popular. Immensely popular despite being as inherently impractical as today's do it all CUV's are practical. Why was that? Because they were high automobile fashion. Also keep in mind the sport utility vehicle as we know it today not to mention crossovers hadn't been invented yet.

So, how did we get from there to this world we live in today where by 2021 experts say 84% of vehicle sales will be some sort of (loosely defined) truck? We can put the blame for this at the door stop of the Great Tastemaker, General Motors. For as much as GM designed and built a litany of stylish cars years ago that drove their market share to an absurd and monopoly like 60%, when they began to fail at producing automobiles that people wanted on a visceral level, they sought out vehicles that did regardless of whether or not they were produced by GM.

GM began to stop making cars people wanted in 1978 with the introduction of their downsized intermediate line that included our Cutlass here. With perhaps, maybe, the exception of the Chevrolet Malibu, everyone of GM's smaller intermediates missed their mark styling wise. Sales may have been strong at first but the awkward, quirky and homely cars quickly caught up to GM and sales dropped precipitously. Worst of all, their replacements were completely out of sync with consumer tastes greasing the rails for GM's eventual crash and burn. Seriously, as subjective as the answer to this question might be, can you name a single car introduced by GM in the last forty years that struck a chord with buyers the way the Oldsmobile Cutlass did prior to 1978? Note I said, "car". GM's done nothing right except build trucks people wanted for the last four decades.

I've been lamenting the demise of two-door cars for years now hoping that someday they'd return to their former glory believing that everything old fashion wise will soon be new again but I've seriously given up all hope. What with their impracticality and the number of really interesting CUV's available today, there's just no room nor need for them. What's left of coupes today are niche vehicles; wonderful, sexy, expensive niche vehicles that appeal to enthusiasts like never before but niche vehicles nonetheless. As if it makes a difference to me to be seen in what everyone else is driving. Anyway, does make you wonder about what vehicle type will dominate sales in the future like CUV's and trucks do today and the way cars like our 1975 Cutlass here did years ago.





1974 Chevrolet Corvette 454 - That Will Not Buff Out

Some blame safety bumpers while others say it was catalytic converters but there's no definitive reason as to why 1968-1974 third generation Corvettes are worth more than 1975-1982 models. And then there's a sliding scale within 1968-1974 "C3's"; the older the C3 the more valuable it is. Corvette experts say you're throwing your money away on a '75-'82 "C3" unless you have your sights set on a 1978 Corvette in full 25th Anniversary regalia. And then it better have next to no miles on it. I mention this because this lopsided value scale is the only reason that I can think of as to why this beat to death 454 V-8 powered 1974 Corvette with only 8,000 miles on it has an asking price of $10,000.

On paper a 1974 "454" Corvette with only 8,000 miles on it for $10,000 would have me rifling through my kitchen drawer for my check book. Well, I'm best to hold on to my leisure suit and disco pants - like most things in life if it seems too good to be true it usually is. This bad boy isn't so much rough around the edges as it is literally jagged making it's asking price seem not so much like a bargain but all the money in the world. Darn. I have no idea what happened to the front end here but I venture to guess it was stuck in a garage and ended up having items "stored" on it. How else to explain that gouge on the right headlight door, the multitude of scratches, no they will not buff out, and the horrible crack in the top of the driver's side fender. Ouch. Sure looks like something was dropped on it and because their bodies are made of fiberglass, Corvettes don't dent - they literally break.

The hood not closed is also a reason for concern - might be nothing as these clamshell hoods sit like this after the release is pulled but would it have killed the photographer to close it? Also, seeing that the hood of this car was used probably as some sort of makeshift table or shelf, if it's warped, that was one expensive table. Maybe the latch is broken. Who knows. 

  

Old Corvettes are hard to sell because they're polarizing even amongst fans of old cars; as many people hate them as love them. Car people either don't appreciate them or they don't care for "Corvette people" who often times tend to be fans of Corvettes and could care less about other old cars. These cars had an image problem when they were new and to some degree even after all these years they still do; who do the owners of these cars think they are? You should see how some people treat my wife and I on the road whenever we take ours out; we wave at them mouthing, "we're not assholes. Really. We're not." They're expensive to own too. Especially to have body work done or repairs made to their deceptively complex independent rear suspensions. 

Oh, what did I say about body work? That crack in the driver's fender was bad enough - this here made me laugh out loud. I mean, seriously. Wow. The ad claims this happened from a tire blowing out (what?) and repairing it would be inexpensive. Good luck even finding a body shop today that would take this on let alone do a good job fixing whatever the hell happened here. If there's any good news it's that all Corvettes are "catalog cars" meaning you can get most anything you need online. Yes, even rear clips.

Still, it's a 1974 Corvette with a 454 so it's worth at least something. In condition at least approaching my worn but still very pretty 1977 Corvette, it might fetch upwards of $10,000 but in this shape, I don't know what amount of money to offer the owner that wouldn't be insulting. And if it looks this bad in photos you know it's going to look even worse in person.