Way back before the cross over craze t-boned the sedan market, cars like this 1997 Chevrolet Lumina were the bread and butter of the automobile industry; domestic and foreign. While 1980's Japanese cars defined what a sedan could and dare I say should be, domestically, Ford flipped the board in 1986 when they introduced their Taurus and somewhat conservatively styled Mercury Sable. The design theme of those cars playing off the progressive 1983 "aero" Thunderbird" and Cougar. I never really cared for those cars save for 1987-88 Thunderbirds so I was flummoxed by what people saw in the Taurus/Sable. Then I drove one or two and "got-it". While it's a stretch to say they road and handled like a Camry or Taurus, their road-going dynamics were quite good, ergonomics were ingeniusly simple and they were great values. Damn it, GM. Why didn't you come out with those cars?
Our '97 here is part of the Lumina class of 1995 that was the first of the '88 GM10's, by '95 GM changed the chassis designation to "W-body", to receive any significant upgrades. Along with an updated base engine, GM swapped out the creaky, "Corvette-inspired", transverse leaf spring rear suspension for more conventional coils. All that along with new sheet metal that was deemed far more contemporary than before. I, of course, thought it looked like a Taurus; albeit a better looking one. At least the two-door version they called "Monte Carlo" had some elan although not nearly as much as the previous Lumina coupe or the arugubly over-styled Monte Carlo that debuted in 2000. Hey, I know what I'm talking about here. I've had five of these cars over the last (gulp) thirty years and I've had my present 2002 Monte Carlo going on ten years. Hey, don't judge. Plain and simple, you either "get" these cars or you don't and it's impossible to explain what there is to "get". So, there.
What to make, then, of our '97 here above and beyond what might be a solid albeit very old used car? Well, honestly, not much more than it being a staid, second rate transportation conveyance that couldn't go bumper-to-bumper with it's competition when it was less old. With it being a 1997 and all it doesn't mean it's not perfectally suitable for whatever I'd need it for. The kicker is, if I found a Taurus of this vintage with similar mileage and asking price I wouldn't give it a moments notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment