2010 Cadillac DTS- Not Even Quaint

I saw one of these for the first time at a new-car show at the Dallas Convention Center when we lived in North Texas back in 2005. I'm almost embarrassed to say at the time I thought it a fine looking automobile. Bold, sleek, modern, progressive. Seriously. I thought it a delightful update of the game-changing "G-body" 2000 deVille that came with a new model nameplate, "DTS" replacing the vaunted but very long in the tooth "deVille" moniker that had been festooned on a Cadillac going back to 1949. Actually, a semi-new nameplate. "DTS" was a trim designation denoting "deVille Touring Sedan" on the 2000-2005 deVille. I saw this DTS the other day in a dimly lit, grimy parking garage near our home here in Cleveland, Ohio and I was like, "the hell was I thinking?" 

It's funny how my taste in automobiles has gotten younger as I've gotten older. Or let's just say, "less old". My wife refers to the big old cars I love as  "old-man" cars and I get what she means. Especially as I get older - now more than ever you are what you drive. When you're younger there's some "cool" in driving a car originally targeted at older buyers but in your mid-fifties, you drive a car like this and you're perpetuating the "grand-father" stereotype. For the record, I'm particularly fond of what I refer to as "Rat Pack" GM models from 1949-1972 and my adulation for them is for them being rolling works of art rather than as luxuriously appointed, fine riding and hand ling transportation conveyances. I look at this amorphous blob of a luxury-car wannabee, and see it for exactly what it is - an amorphous blob of a luxury-car wannabee. Nothing more and probably a whole lot less. 

I've driven several of these and they're just ok. They're comfortable and quiet although not particularly engaging or really memorable. The suspension is set so soft and gooey I thought there a problem with it as these things tend to bob up and down at speed like a boat on choppy water. Well, everything is relative. Compared to the spiritual predecessors of these cars they're out and out sporty. They're also very heavy. So heavy that I thought their mighty Northstar V-8 engines not up to the task of moving them sufficiently. Although, a quick check of contemporary road tests reveals that these cars could scoot from zero to sixty in around seven seconds. These will blow the doors of a 1970 Coupe deVille. But look no where near as good. 

As far as the design of these cars, subjectively, it's interesting how poorly the outward appearance of these cars has aged. Blame that on the rapid and seismic evolution of the sedan market over the last fifteen years. What's left of it making older cars like this look as dated as the "Rat Pack" cars made anything made prior look so dated that they're not even quaint.  

With my rapidly rusting out 2002 Dale Earnhardt Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS once again giving me fits, the major issues keep piling up and while it's never been a bastion of rock-solid reliability, they're coming now at a break-neck pace, I'm semi-ensconced in trying to find a replacement for it. Sadly, while these cars with low mileage can be found at affordable prices, while years ago they may have been on my shopping list, these days they most certainly aren't.  

Here's a fun fact, "deVille" was the last "name" for a Cadillac coupe or sedan what with their change to (stupid and confusing) alpha-numeric naming that started in 2003 with the "CTS". 

1986 Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 - Distinctly Different Bubba

I really liked Pontiac's 1981 update of their 1978 downsized Grand Prix. Although, honestly, they still lacked that "gotta-have-it" swagger of the "classic" GP's of 1969-1972 and even to some extent the 1973-1977 "colonnades". I blame that on these cars being just too darn small for a design that was "that big". Like we've discussed before, some designs look better on larger canvases. Of course, the inverse is true as well. They where hardly the worst looking things on the road at the time  and certainly had more of the "spirit" of the older GP's than than the 1978-1980 did. 

Unlike Chevrolet, though, Pontiac never offered a Grand Prix of this vintage with anything remotely construed as a performance engine or even a handling package. Even when it appeared that would have as in the case of these odd looking 1986 only, Grand Prix 2+2's. Allegedly, just 1,225 were built so Pontiac could be in compliance with NASCAR's even at the time archaic rule that whatever raced on their tracks had to be available for sale to the public. Even in such limited quantities. Chevrolet offered a similar looking Monte Carlo SS they called "Aero-coupe" for 1986 and 1987. Incidentally, the 2+2 moniker hearkened back to the a trim package Pontiac offered on their Catalina from 1964-1967. 

Outwardly, the biggest difference between the Monte Carlo SS "Aero-coupe" and a Grand Prix 2+2 was that while the Monte Carlo SS kept the same front end other Monte Carlo SS' models had, Pontiac drew up this (eek!) "shovel nose" front end. As we say, though, "there's an ass for every seat". Folks gobbled everyone of these up quick as they could. No doubt most were NASCAR fans although I'm sure a few were sold to folks who had no idea what the design inspiration for them was. 

Inside buyers got power windows and door locks, still considered higher-end items in the mid 1980's, and buckets and a console enclosed floor shifter which were the epitome of "sporty" back then. There's also that steering wheel that looks like it was pulled from a Fiero. And, oh, that plastic wood grain dash. May have worked on "lesser" GP's but on one with sporting pretensions like this thing, it's as bad as the nose job this car has. 

Although I love the paint scheme, stripes and those "Rally II" rims, as a GM die-hard. then as I inexplicably remain today, I could almost look past the funky (not in a good way) front end and rear window had their been some serious power under the hood. All of these came with nothing more potent than Chevrolet's one-hundred sixty five horsepower 305 V-8 engine. That's too bad. Can you imagine one of these hopped up with the mighty Buick turbo V-6 from this era? All sins forgiven! 

While we're talking engines, it always struck me as odd that GM never offered the fabulous "Tuned-Port-Injection" or TPI 305 engines they offered on Z28's and Trans Am's on these cars. If there was no 305 offered I wont' even mentioned the 350 version of it. Even on the Monte Carlo SS which never had any more than one-hundred an eighty horsepower from the factory. As if someone would buy a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix that could really move over a Camaro Z28 or Trans Am. I mean, some would. Yes. But by and large they were to two distinctly different Bubba's. And seeing that the owner of this car wants almost twenty-grand for it, spending that much on this and then doing a proper motor swap makes no sense what-so-ever. 

1977 Little Red Corvette Rear End Rebuild - Part I - Disassembly

After I was cut off abruptly on I-480 south west of Cleveland a couple of years ago, save for oh-so-short jaunts around town, I hadn't really driven our lovely 1977 "Little Red Corvette" much. That incident frightened me pretty good because when I slammed the brakes to avoid hitting that yahoo, the whole car rotated on its tires with the passenger side rear end swinging around fixing to change places with the passenger front. I knew there was something up "back there" all along but how wrong things were was a mystery. I figured the thumping and clunking was all part of the C3 experience. Well, the moaning, groaning and creaking from the rear end kept getting worse and worse and it finally got so bad that I stopped driving it completely and even dropped insurance coverage. I know. Risky. But that's what can happen with old cars - you love them and would never think of getting rid of them, well, I mean you would but not at a complete loss, but they become too dangerous and a burden to drive. 

This past spring I finally decided to do something about it. Armed with years of research on third generation or "C3" Corvette rear suspensions, I dove into the abyss of extreme DIY automobile repair. Am I a mechanic? Nope. Do I really know what I'm doing? Technically, no. Do I have the funds to have this done professionally? Well, yeah, but I don't think it financially responsible to spend the amount of money it would take to have it done professionally. That amount, when all said and done, being more than the car was worth. Especially in the dilapidated condition the car was in. And, being honest, I enjoy working on cars. So, with these dis-parent notions I got down and dirty. 

While gorgeous, rolling works of art, second and third generation Corvette's come with a number of inherent problems. Their fiberglass bodies flex and can crack and are very expensive to repair. Their cast iron frames are rust prone, they have myriad electrical issues as well. However, it's their independent rear suspensions that are perhaps their most overlooked problem areas. They're Fred Flinstone mobile primitive, wear out easily and, being totally honest, don't really provide a degree of performance improvement above and beyond sporty domestic cars of similar vintage with "live", rigid rear axles. Worse yet, they can be frighteningly expensive to repair. Even if you do the repairs yourself. 

Diagnosing problems with cars, old and newer, is often times more challenging than the repair work itself. However, with our Corvette, it was pretty easy to determine that the issue with the rear end was that the bushings on the trailing arms were worn out. Also, the metal shims that brace the trailing arms against the body inside pockets on the frame were shot as well. Yes, metal shims that brace the arms in pockets on the frame; I said these things were primitive. I deduced from my research that "all I had to do" was pull the trailing arms, replace the bushings and shims, put everything back together, align it and very affordably rock and roll. I'd upgrade the tires too since I found, and embarrassingly so,  they're over thirty years old. 

Dismantling the car wasn't complicated but it was physically challenging and fairly dangerous; you never know what could snap a finger or hand off and I really don't like crawling under a car that has nothing more than a pair of thirty-nine dollar Autozone jack stands propping it up. As far as physically demanding, drilling out the rivets that held the brake rotors on felt like the a physical education test administered by the gym teacher from hell. Each one taking upwards of a half an hour of grueling pressing to get out. All in we're talking about five hours of drilling over the better part of a week. That and more than hundred bucks spent on cobalt drill bits. Like I said, this repair work is not cheap. 

The real scope of the project took shape once I got the rotors off. I found that the emergency brake hardware on each side was completely rusted up and useless and the cost of replacement hardware pushed my budget into the "replace the trailing arms" territory. Then I found it appeared the wheel bearing on the passenger side had significant play in it. Well, there went just replacing the bushings and shims. Might as well replace the both trailing arms. 

If drilling out the rotors was hard, cutting the bolts that held the trailing arms into the pockets in the frame amounted to torture. With the shims rusted to the outboard wall of the pockets and the bushings themselves having come out of the trailing arms, I had no way to determine where the bolts where; I had to start cutting what I could see of the rubber bushings all but completely blind. And with a very limited amount of room inside the pocket, my carbide reciprocating saw blade hit the back of the pocket constantly making it seem as though the worst dental procedure I ever had felt like I was receiving a communion host. 

Much like DIY home renovation projects, you never know what you're really getting yourself into until you're knee deep in it. This project got significantly more complicated when I found the transverse leaf spring and the differential needed to be replaced as well. Those two things not only adding significant expense and complication to the whole project but pushing the completion of it towards the end of the year if not into 2021. 

Funny, I thought I could do most of this project during a week's furlough from work due to The Pandemic. Funny indeed. Going on sixteen weeks into the project I feel as though I've only just started on it. 

1982 Mercury Cougar Station Wagon - Please Don't Call It a Cougar

I've never been able to begin to understand why Ford glued "Cougar" to a Ford Granada station wagon for 1982. And only 1982. There had to be solid good reasoning behind that, right? 

To me it was insult on top of injury seeing that for 1981 Mercury perched a four-door Cougar at the top of their mid-size sedan pecking order replacing the late and certainly not great Monarch. The Cougar two-door, essentially a badge engineered Thunderbird, stuck around. Such as it was, it least it was still technically true to at least what it was going back to 1974. While that was a far cry from even what it was from even 1971-1973 to say nothing of what it was from 1967-1969, it at least wasn't a station wagon. Yet. 

Mercury's previous mid-size wagon was the Zephyr wagon which while they continued to make the Zephyr two and four door sedans in 1982, there was no wagon version. For 1982 the Ford division came out with a Granada wagon replacing the Fairmont wagon; maybe someone thought a Merc version was needed to help amortize costs?  Ok. Fine. Again, though, as a Cougar? 

Granted, "Cougar" didn't exactly hold the same cache that Thunderbird did but still, for a model nameplate that was at one time on par the Ford Mustang and then the Thunderbird, it seemed to me at least as a serious demotion for the model. Then again, the passionate cries of fans of something are rarely heard. Ford claims it listened to the Mustang faithful who clamored for Ford not to replace the Fox-body Mustang with what became the Probe but I've always thought that public relations nonsense. Then again, whom are we mortals to question the marketing and product planners at an automobile company. 

The incessant model changing wasn't just at Mercury either. Ford tweaked and altered model names on so many of their vehicles in all of the divisions back then that you'd almost need an excel spread sheet to keep track of it all. It only got worse as the Cougar sedan and wagon became the Marquis in 1983 and what had been the Marquis became the Grand Marquis. Got that? And that was just at who gives a damn about Mercury too. Over at Ford, for '83, what had been the Granada got a face lift and became the LTD and the previous LTD became the LTD Crown Victoria before becoming just plain old, Crown Victoria. Not going to go there with Lincoln. 

For 1983 Cougar returned to its rightful position in the division as a personal luxury car albeit one that once again was little more than lightly disguised Thunderbird. 

If I've learned anything about working for large corporations is that there are scores and scores of people who have to justify their paychecks. Many of them are notorious for acting or looking as thought they're busy when in fact all they're doing is looking busy. They're really not doing much of anything. I 'd put money on all the deck chair rearranging Ford did back in the early '80's on it being a bunch  of yahoo's just trying to justify their existence. 

About the '82 Cougar wagon, in fairness, it was all together not a bad transportation conveyance. Built on the same platform that Ford build more than half its line up off of, that being the Fox-body, it handled well, despite its relative diminutive size was quite spacious inside and was actually reasonably bolted, screwed and glued together well. Sure, it fell down on itself on the details and don't get me started on it built with only Ford's wheezie 3.8 liter, carburetored V-6, but it got reasonably good gas mileage.  

Just, please. Don't call it a Cougar. 

1983 Pontiac Trans Am - Don't Miss Out

GM's new for 1982 "F-body" Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird were smaller, lighter, handled better and were much better on gas on the very long in tooth models they replaced. However, overall the jury was split as to whether or not they were all-in better cars. Especially with regards to aesthetics. Seeing that values of third gen "F's" are far less than what second and first generations go for, values of older cars being driven mostly by the design of the car, safe to say the verdict was not favorable for the defendants. Especially for the early third generation Firebird and Trans Am. Our "built" T/A here is a 1983. 

Even as big a fan of the second generation Camaro and Firebird as I was, I knew it was time for new models when the new ones rolled out in the fall of 1981. After all, GM had built the previous models for twelve model years going back to 1970. It being the height of the "Malaise Era" of cars, where everything new was smaller, lighter, slower and not as good looking as it had been, I was pleasantly surprised by the looks of the Camaro whereas I could have cared less about the Firebird. Even the Trans AM. 

From the bowling ball center wheels, which our subject is missing, to the overly swoopy hood to the flip up headlamps, every time I see a Firebird from this era I immediately say, "I'd rather have a Camaro". And when I see a third gen Camaro I say, "I wish it was a second gen". Here's a fun fact, that hood bulge on the left side of the hood is there to make way for the turbocharged Pontiac 301 V-8 that was pulled from production just as the design was approved for these cars. You'll find that bulge, which I actually think is pretty damn cool, only on 1982-1984 Trans Am's. 

Part of the problem with this car in particular and its cousin the Camaro Z28 was that it was born with the infamous, "Cross-Fire Injection" fuel injection system. It's the same system Chevrolet used on 1982, 1984 and early 1985 Corvette's albeit on their 350 cubic-inch engine and not the 305 like they used on Trans AM's and Z28's. Pontiac started using Chevrolet V-8's in 1982 because they didn't make V-8 engines after 1981. 

Cross-Fire engines used two throttle body fuel injection systems that fed air and fuel to the opposite banks they sat on. Feeding opposite banks, hence the silly "Cross-Fire" nomenclature, wasn't the problem as much as it was an unnecessarily complicated system that was fussy to tune properly. It being the advent of electronic engine controls and what not, properly trained technicians were few and far between. Us backyard shade tree guys hadn't a clue as to what to do with them. 

The other engine offered on T/A's and Z28's of this vintage was the LG4 engine with an electronically controlled four-barrel carburetor. Despite making some twenty less horsepower than the Cross-Fire (LU5) engine, at least in terms of reliability and serviceability it was the superior engine. Bolted to a 5-speed, the difference between the two engines was negligible. It's no wonder our '83 here has what appears to be the stroker of all stroker engine swaps. Look, headers. 

Of course, there's no info on what the engine has in it but what appears to be tasty albeit pricey package does come with a Hurst shifter as well. No doubt this thing can really move. Just wish it was a Camaro. 

Here's the listing. Ad says retail price is $19,000. Too funny. Don't miss out! 

Opel GT - Junior Corvette

Stumbled across this Opel GT, mistakenly labeled as an Opel "Manta", on Facebook Marketplace the other morning while I was searching for rear end and suspension parts for my 1977 Corvette. That's fitting seeing how some of the design work on these cars were done by the same team that penned C3 Corvette's and these were known as "Junior Corvette's". Asking price is a not unreasonable $10,500. Especially so when you consider it's stuffed with a "built" Chevrolet 350 V-8. I mean, I'd never pay that but I wouldn't chide you and say you over paid for this if you bought it. 

Like many sports cars used to be and some still are (looking at you, sixth gen Chevrolet Camaro), the 1969-1973 Opel GT was based on humble sedan underpinnings. In this case, Opel's 1965 B Series Kadett which was as bland looking as Euro-mobiles got back in the '60's. Well, save for stuff that rolled out of Russia and East Germany. Shoot, the Kadett even made Rambler's look cool. 

It's not that the Kadett was ugly, it was just boring and uninspired looking. It was, however, a fairly competent little handler; especially compared to the plowing, truckish oafs pushed out by the Big Three over here back then. In that regard, amazing what a set of sexy clothes will do for a dowdy but smart wall flower. I don't know about you but I find something veddy alluring about a smart, sassy, bookish librarian.  

However, I can say with all certainty that had I been of car buying age and means back then I'd pass on one of these instead opting for its big brother, the Corvette. Despite the fact that the GT could run circles around it. And for a lot less money. Hey, never confuse me with someone who's makes smart automotive purchases. 

Well, run circles around it once it got moving. These things were powered by either Kadett's 1.1 liter overhead valve or 1.9 liter cam-in head four-cylinder engines making sixty-seven and one-hundred and two horsepower respectively. The 1.9, of course, providing significantly better acceleration for the one-ton two seater than the 1.1 but still no C3 of the same vintage with even its base engine. 

Speaking of engines, aside from saying this thing is "built", there aren't any details in the ad about either what went into this or even a boast about what it can do. So, I'm left to merely speculate. And rather than get all engine geeky about it, much as I'd love to, I'll just leave it at that and just assume that this big engine would provide exhilarating acceleration. I'm not crazy about the little air cleaner sticking up out of the hood but aside from that, sure looks fast. don't it? 

Opel brought back the "GT" nameplate for a short lived sporty two-seater back in the '00's that while quite fetching, didn't quite check all the boxes on the purity of form that the original had. Even if it was a vastly superior automobile all the way around. GM also sold that car as the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice. 

1972 Capri. Imported for Lincoln-Mercury - Company Car

My father rented one of these years ago after one of his business trips to Raleigh when he was some sort of executive with Burlington Industries. Objectively, it's sad to say I didn't know what he did for a living when I was young but such was my relationship with him. Anyway, he hated the little thing but I was in love with it. Truly, madly, deeply in love. I still am if you must know. 

Ford did little right in the years of my misbegotten childhood and not making these Ford of Germany built little cars the 1971 Mustang or the 1974 Mustang II was one of their most glaring errors. Although woefully if not painfully under-powered, at least at first, these cars were evidence that someone working for Ford had a clue as to what an automobile should, would and could be.

The fact that it could have been a Mustang is borne out of the fact that Ford of Germany, having seen the furious pace that the 1964 1/2 Mustang sold, began almost immediately to design a Mustang of their own. And is so often the case, especially the Ford Motor Company with having their good ideas bested by the competition, what became known as the Ford Capri "over there" was, save for being slower, a vastly superior "Mustang" to any Mustang Ford pushed out. Well, at least up through 1979. 

That dreary fall day back on Long Island when my father drove my brother and I to school in that rental was one of the highlights of my third grade days at good old "Oaks School" in Oceanside, New York. A day when I could (but didn't) brag to my classmates with unbridled enthusiasm, "look what my dad is driving". Had I done that I probably would have also told them to pay no mind to the red-faced portly man driving it whom was slamming as many curse words together as he could as he attempted to manipulate it's manual transmission and unassisted power steering.  

In the days before the first energy crisis, which, incidentally, was a forgone conclusion that it was going to happen sooner than later, imports were already gaining traction in this country and Ford scurried about looking for a gas sipping car for Mercury to sell. They never called these things "Mercury Capri's" but rather simply if not oddly just "Capri...Imported for Lincoln-Mercury". What's in a name anyway, right? 

Why they didn't simply badge engineer a Pinto as a Mercury, as they would eventually starting in 1975, is beyond me. Then again, attempting to figure out what megalomaniac, apolitically run car companies do and did (and will do) is a fruitless exercise. Of course, I'm glad they didn't. 

If these cars had any weakness in their fetlocks, it was that they were expensive to build and ship around the world. That pretty much explains why Ford didn't seriously think about selling them wholesale as a Mustang. They were pushed to the back of Lincoln-Mercury showrooms thus becoming fairly boutique in a way. 

Somehow and for whatever reason, L-M sold these through 1978 complete with a debate-ably tasteful reboot and reskin for model year 1976 complete with an updated name, "Capri II". Ford was seemingly obsessed with "II" in the '70's what with the Mustang II, the LTD II and what not. When Ford ushered in the new Mustang for 1979, apparently believing there was some equity in the "Capri" nameplate, Ford slapped "Capri" on a Mustang and, voila, Mercury had a Mustang. Again. Keep in mind that Mercury's 1968-1970 and 1971-1973 Cougar were Mustang's in a very fancy and alluring suit. Well, the '68'-'70 Cougars anyways. Jury still in session about the latter ones. 

My father left Burlington Industries shortly after our jaunt in that little car and his next job kept him grounded with no business trips. It was a job working a law firm bur he wasn't a lawyer so, just I have no idea what he did. This much I do know, like most people, rentals or "company cars" from then on were few and far between.