2002 Ford Thunderbird - Alta Cocker

Doesn't seem that long ago that my wife and I with were signing off on the purchase of a new Taurus and our very young sons were passing the time turning a brand new 2002 Ford Thunderbird, just like our little redhead here, into a jungle gym.

That Thunderbird the boys were pounding on beamed like a rock star to me and the young father I was at the time day dreamt wistfully about carefree days behind the wheel of one without a worry in the world. Funny how now that I could get one of these cars, on the cheap, of course, I want one as much as I'd want a typewriter. The hell happened?

Well, as I've gotten older, I've acquired the ability to at least attempt to see myself through other people's eyes. Especially with regards to the automobiles that I chose to drive. The car you drive does say a lot about you. For instance, that Ford Taurus my wife and I drove said - "steady, practical, family man". My daily driver at the time was a 1997 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS which said similarly with a dash of pseudo-style. A 2002 retro futura Ford Thunderbird? What did this say about its owner? That I'm style and image conscious, that I'm not a car person (which is fine) and I spent a lot of money on something that makes me look older than I am.

From the get-go, these cars had a problem finding buyers not so much because they weren't great looking cars but because in addition to being niche, boutique automobiles, they were very expensive. At more than $40,000 each, and many dealerships marked these up when new north of $50,000, snow cones sold better to Eskimos. An overpriced, retro-styled, two passenger car - who'd buy that? Well, who do you think? Like I said, alta cockers. 

A what? Us New Yorkers use the term "alta cocker", a Yiddish expression for "old man", to label anything we consider appealing to old people. In this case, oldsters attempting to seem young and/or youthful. Young, youthful and well-heeled too. Thing is though when grandma and granddad went to spend some of the money they'd will to their grandchildren, they had many better options than a tarted up Lincoln LS to choose from. And thirty or even twenty thirty-somethings had more compelling options as well; the throwback nature of the car may have been lost on them anyway. So, if they were not taken with what the car for what it was, they looked the other way. Ford certanily built a car here with a very narrow landing strip. 

All that a shame seeing what stout performers these cars are. Based on the same chassis that underpinned the Jaguar S type, Lincoln LS and later, with some modification, the 2005 Ford Mustang, these cars could run circles around just about any other Ford Thunderbird that came out prior. Maybe not as fast as a 1989 Thunderbird Super Coupe but that 3.9 liter V-8 right there could provide enough poke that, with the top down, you'd better make sure your toupee's adhesive was fresh and secure. 

Also, keep this in mind - retro-styled cars are not for everyone. To some, myself included, there's a cartoonish quality about them that I don't find appealing. These Thunderbirds and other "retros" like the Dodge Challenger, Chevrolet Camaro, Volkswagen new/old Beetle, Mini Cooper and even, to some degree, the current Ford Mustang are not "gotta have it" designs that transcend what inspired them. If anything, as far as I'm concerned, they make me want for a resto-modded original and not some modern facsimile. If you're not aware of the designs those cars are inspired by and like them for what they are then by all means then go for it. As for me, I'll stick with the originals. Mind you, not that I can afford them. 

1979 Chrysler 300 - I Like What They've Done To My Car

After "rich Corinthian leather", the most famous line Ricardo Montalban ever said about a Chrysler Cordoba was, "I like what they've done to my car" when he was hawking the new for 1980 Cordoba. I don't know why that line stuck but it did although, as much as I like to think that he personally convinced me that Cordoba's were cool,  I never agreed with him that the "little"  1980 Cordoba was an improvement over even Chrysler's abortive 1978 update of the 1975 original.

That 1978 update included all new sheet metal that made the Cordoba somewhat swoopy like a 1973-1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. In doing so, through my eyes, they made Cordoba less distinctive looking. While I have no love for them, perhaps it has to do more with the fact they didn't call this car a Cordoba, I do love  the 1979 Chrysler 300. "I like what they've done to my car"! Of course that being a year after they screwed it up.

Much like Pontiac's 1977 Can Am, the 1979 Chrysler 300 was a one year only model that seemed like a big going away party for a design that, I can only guess, had its fans inside the corporation who wanted to do something special, different and memorable before it was put to pasture. How else to explain it since designers and engineers had to have known an all-new Cordoba was coming for 1980? Here's another don't let the door hit your ass on the way "ism", this car was launched mid-year.  I can hear upper management mocking the internal supporters of this car now - "Hey, you kids have your fun dressing up a Cordoba and if you can sell them at a significant markup we'll put in a good word for you with the new management team coming in".



Those kid's and Chrysler's timing, though, couldn't have been worse for the introduction of a big, heavy, thirsty, pseudo muscle luxury car. The second gas crisis of the '70's was knocking sales sideways and Chrysler, just like during the first gas shock in 1973-74, was taking it on the hood ornament harder than GM or Ford did.  Chrysler sales were down over 17% year over year and they lost a record $1.1 billion for model year 1979. Enter government loans, the K-car, Lee Iacocca and the rest is history.



So, what did you get when you checked the order form for a 300? Well, on the surface, aside from badging, a subtle tape job, the cool "machined" dash from the Dodge Magnum GT and, halleluiah, no vinyl landau roof, not much. Especially when you consider the near $1,700 upcharge over a Cordoba.

Underhood things got a little more interesting. Powertrain wise, 300's were more or less two-door police cars of the day. That there is the "E58" four barrel 360 cubic inch cop engine that made 195 horsepower. Back by a rugged albeit standard issue "727" Torque-Flite automatic transmission, 9 1/4 inch, 3.23 "Trac-lok" rear end, heavy duty suspension and a "true" dual exhaust system, this was one quick Cordoba. Relatively speaking of course.

With the economy in the toilet, another gas crisis and Chrysler's fortunes going down the tubes before the bailout, just 4,292 1979 300's were ever built making this car almost as rare as a unicorn. What's it worth? Hard to say given that most domestics made after 1973 aren't worth much - especially late '70's domestics that don't have a flame-belching chicken on its hood.

And a one year only unicorn like this with 143,000 miles on it priced at $7,500 seems like all the money in the world. That's a ton for a mint, low mileage Cordoba let alone one in a faded, ripped leisure suit. Being unique, after all, doesn't necessarily mean "collectible" or that something is worth a premium above what it's based on. Still, "I like what they've done to my car"  Make me jealous and get it for like $2,500. Here's the listing. 

1991 Cadillac Coupe DeVille - Ew

 

This 1991 Cadillac Coupe deVille is for sale on Craigslist in Youngstown for $4900. Might seem like a lot for one of these much maligned and derided front wheel drive deVilles but when you factor in the  showroom condition it appears to be in, the fact it has a 200 horsepower, port fuel injection 4.9- liter V-8 and that it has only 29,000 miles on it, it's quite a lot of car for the money. So, why didn't I call on it?

 

 

Because Cadillac's are supposed to be something more than just cars. And that's all this is. A car. An awkwardly styled, "old man car" too. It's interior isn't even trimmed in leather.

 

 

I've blogged before about my ambivalence towards these cars and how they were part of Cadillac's stunning decline in the 1980's. Read about what I've had to say about them here and here. I guess I'm really putting my money were my mouth is since I have no interest in this car even with it being in fabulous shape and being priced quite reasonably.

 

 

Just to make sure of the way I felt and that I was not foolishly not jumping on this thing, I texted my older son a picture of this car and asked for his opinion. He loves old cars and has a great sense of what's cool and what's not; he gently steered me away from a Lincoln Town Car a couple of weeks ago so I know he knows what he's doing. His one word response back to me was, "ew". 









1993 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue - Choir Practice

Before I do my best to eviscerate this perfectly awful 1993 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue, I think I should at least pay some homage to the K car platform or chassis it's based on. I think that's only fair.

 

Chrysler's much lauded "K-car" started out in 1978 known as the "L-body" and was the underpinning for the Plymouth Horizon and Dodge Omni. Engineered by Simca, a Chrysler subsidiary in Europe, they were adored by automobile pundits for their packaging and efficiency. They were also embraced by a buying public wanting smaller vehicles that were easier to handle, better on gas and were affordable. Much like the K cars they would spawn, however, save for perhaps the Dodge Omni O24, they were certainly nothing to look at. Run circles around most anything for sale at the time made domestically? Oh, you bet. But as for being lookers they were anything but.



Knowing they were onto something, Chrysler quickly started making plans for a fleet of midsized, six passenger vehicles on a modified version of the L platform they called "K". At the time, though, after 15 years or so of bad luck, bad timing and questionable product planning, Chrysler was in serious jeopardy of going bankrupt. The government realizing that a competitive, balanced, non monopolistic automobile industry being paramount to at least a functioning U.S. economy, loaned Chrysler 1.5 billion dollars so they could remain somewhat buoyant. Keep in mind, though, the government would never have loaned Chrysler the money if they did not believe in their plan to launch of new line of vehicles based on the Simca L-body. Enter telegenic Lee Iacocca as Chrysler president who became the literal face of the company and the K's were smash hit. So much so that Chrysler paid the government back early and the rest as we say is history.

 



So, why don't "K-cars" get the respect that other game changing, seminal vehicles like the Model T and Volkswagen Beetle get? Well, save for maybe the 1987-1995 K-car LeBaron, they were all butt ugly. Especially, in my opinion, these 1990-1993 vintage New Yorker "Fifth Avenues". This, this is a luxury car? Good lord, did anyone with a shred of styling acumen take pencil to paper to draw up this thing? I think not.

 

In fairness, the K-car New Yorker had, literally, enormous luxury car brake shoes to fill. For instance, Chrysler's 1976-1978 New Yorkers were, yes this is highly subjective, perhaps the best-looking luxury cars of the 1970's; certainly the best looking Chrysler New Yorker of all time. I've said it before that these cars were better-looking Cadillacs than anything Cadillac made back then. That said, they sold terribly in what's always been a niche market dominated by anything "Cadillac" that was made even smaller by the first gas crisis in 1974. End of the day, though, there's no mistaking this New Yorker as a luxury car.
 

 

This thing? Please. And how we got from there to here in just ten short model years is a story about horrendously bad design, more poor product planning and a complete disconnect from their customer base. Somehow, Chrysler thought people would buy this and other stretched K car based "luxury cars" and some actually did. Why? Damned if I know. Chrysler did have some cache back then and never underestimate middle America's love of what they perceive to be value. However, sorry - you just can't make a narrow, boxy economy car longer, stuff it with fluffy leather seats, fake wire wheels, plop a silly plastic/crystal hood ornament on it and call it a luxury car.
 

 

Well, you can but who are you really fooling? Luxury is about the unnecessary and Chrysler did cram every last bit of unnecessary, cliched, ersatz 1970's luxury car bauble and bit into these things. Problem is they left out the most important thing about a luxury car - style.  I find it hard to believe Chrysler's design department did a collective high five and celebrated this design at choir practice when it was completed. More like drowned their sorrows at the Regal Beagle. Oh, and for the record - yeah, I know - this is a "Fifth Avenue" meaning that between 1990 and 1993 you got a bump in wheelbase over lesser New Yorkers that helped create near limousine sized rear seating capacity. 

 

 

Seriously, is it any wonder that Lexus took off like it did in the early 1990's when The Big Three were shilling horrible cars like this? Mind you, Cadillac was doing no better with their stretched to the max DeVille either and forget the rear wheel drive "Brougham" they had at the time. Lincoln was doing slightly better with their Taurus based Continental but, again, compared to the juggernaut that was Lexus, Infiniti too, they didn't stand a chance. Would a better looking K-car based "New Yorker" make me feel differently about these cars? Perhaps but only to a certain degree since compared to just about anything coming out of Japan back then, the Chrysler K-car was woefully and hopelessly inadequate.

1993 Mazda RX-7 - Vexing and Beguiling.

Of all of the fabulous Japanese sports cars that came ashore here in the late 1980's and early 1990's, none was as vexing as Mazda's third generation RX-7. Our subject here is a 1993. 

Vexing and beguiling. I mean, seriously. Look at this thing. It's simply gorgeous. What's more,  these cars could perform as well as many exotic cars for about the same cost as a 1993 Corvette. So, what could possibly be so vexing?

Well, plenty since with these cars Mazda continued their much-ballyhooed infatuation with the Felix Wankel inspired rotary engine. On paper, rotary engines have it going on. Impossibly smooth and capable of as good if not superior performance to piston engines two to three times their size, their being so compact and light, engineers were able to place them far behind the front wheels giving the RX a near 50/50 weight balance. By the way, the "R" in RX is for "rotary" and the "X" is Mazda's designation for "sports car". "Mazda" itself means "light".

Problem is these engines have inherent thermal inefficiencies that lead to excessive fuel consumption and poor tail pipe emissions. What's more they require more service than piston engines do; many owners didn't keep up with them. On these third generation RX-7's, Mazda also added not one but two turbochargers that worked sequentially to increase horsepower and torque. Wonderful. Thing is, it added complexity to an already finicky engine. No wonder that when these things came out of warranty so many of them popped up in used car lots. They then got hovered up by collectors who stashed them away.

In fairness, Mazda used the rotary engine for all the right reasons; it just made all RX' unreliable. And that's a shame since otherwise they were superbly engineered automobiles.

  

Not to mention the third generation RX was beautifully styled like no RX before nor after it was. It's its styling and rarity that has propped up the values of these cars to stratospheric heights. Our well preserved '93 here with just 9,000 miles on it is for sale with an asking price of more than $45,000. Save for perhaps an Acura NSX of this vintage, no other Japanese sports car would command that kind of money. Maybe a pristine, low mileage ZR-1 Corvette would too but who knows. All I know is that I hope who ever buys this car knows a good mechanic who specializes in rotary engines.