2022 Ford Bronco - Coal In My Stocking

Leave it to my wife to not pick up on my not-so-subtle hints that I wanted a two-door Ford Bronco for Christmas. I've only been openly clamoring for one since they first came out back in 2019 for model year 2020 and this year, with my 2002 Dale Earnhardt Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS not only passing the 250,000-mile marker but is now hard charging towards 300K, I pushed harder than ever. Alas, there was no Bronco in my driveway with a big red bow on top Christmas morning. She got me golf stuff instead. Shoot, she might as well have put coal in my stocking. 

Of course, I'm kidding. Asking someone to surprise you with a vehicle is a lot of pressure to put on them. Especially if that person is a "car-person" like me who will scrutinize every single last detail and suck all the joy out of the moment. So much can go wrong. Especially with a vehicle that's more configurable than a 1970's Cadillac. 

For 2023 Ford offers no less than ten-different "Broncos". There's the base Bronco, the Big Bend, Black Diamond, Outer Banks, Badlands, Wild Trak, Everglades, Raptor, Heritage and lastly, but certainly not least expensively, the Bronco Heritage Limited. All of these different iterations available with an insane amount of option packages and accessories pushing the sticker price from approximately $32,000 to just under, $110,000. Holy-Sasquatch!

I haven't even drilled down on a specific color I'd want to say nothing about whether I should opt for a "Kayak Roof Rack" or "Front Bumper Winch". What if she got me the "Tube Doors" when I really wanted the "Bimini Soft Top"? Would she think to ask if she could get the base Bronco with the Raptor's 418-horsepower engine? What about asking if the Oxford White wheels from the Heritage model are available on the base model too? 

While my wife is the most intelligent person I know, there is the distinct possibility as well as she may come home with a completely different Bronco called the Bronco Sport. Why Ford came out with two different vehicles that share the same first name is a real head scratcher; supposedly it's all about "building the brand".  Then again, these are the same folks who festoon "Mustang" to an all-electric crossover. For the record, the Bronco Sport is based off the latest iteration of the (very capable) Ford Escape meanwhile my beloved Bronco is built off the current Ford Ranger pickup truck chassis. Might sound trivial, but it's the difference between what's defined as a "truck" these days and a "tall car". 

I haven't even driven one yet to have any idea what version I'd want; can you test drive each of the ten versions? Therefore, my appreciation of these things is purely visceral, like that crush I had on the captain of the cheer leading squad in high school whom I never spoke a word to. I want one just because I think they're cool looking. Gosh, what if my wife got me one and when I drove it, in my heart of hearts that all-knowing, painfully honest little voice in my head said, "I hate this thing". Been there done that and let me tell you, that's not fun and such experiences have led my wife and I to both suffer from an all but paralyzing fear of "buyer's remorse".  

These things aren't cheap either. Glancing quickly at spec sheets and sales brochures I figure I'd want a "Badlands", two-door, with the 2.7-liter, "Ecoboost" V-6, 10-speed automatic, "Full Time AWD",  "4.7" axle, "mid-package" equipment group, "Sasquatch" package, retractable top, "bash plates" (I have no idea what they are, but they sound cool), Marine Grade, heated vinyl seats, SYNC 4 "voice recognition" and the whole thing slathered in "Area 51" (it's a grey blue) paint. Total, before taxes and fees but with destination charges is a not-as-much as I thought it would be $53,300. Yeah, not as much as I thought but that's still an eff-ton of money. 

The handy-dandy calculator on the Ford.com website guesstimates my\our monthly payment at $906 a month for sixty-months. Whoa. That's with ten-percent down and 5% APR too. Throw in taxes, whatever nonsensical dealer installed accessories I'd have to have and we're pushing $60,000. Say that slowly and it sounds like even more. Sixty. Thousand. Dollars. Good grief. With no money down for sixty months, I'm looking at around $1,200 a month. Ford can stretch the payments out to seventy-two months (six-years!) that would drop payments down to around a grand-a-month. I've seen some car companies offer up to eighty-four monthly payments. Allow me to examine the head of anyone who'd think that's a good idea. 

This, meaning my acquisition of a new or late model Ford Bronco, will never happen. They're just too damn expensive. Now, granted, and at the risk of humble bragging, we can afford these payments, but my wife and I choose not to. And there's a certain empowerment to choosing not to that most people, sadly, either ignore or don't realize is a viable option for them. Leasing doesn't make sense either since lease payments for thirty-six months are quite similar to sixty purchase payments; leasing longer is an even bigger waste of money especially if the buyout is exorbitant. Which it most like will be to get love-struck Jamokes into a vehicle they shouldn't be in. 

What to do then? Well, we wait. We wait for something catastrophic to happen to the ole "Dale" and then we'll make the most prudent, cost-efficient decision we can. And, again, that decision will most certainly not be for a Ford Bronco "Badlands". No matter how much (I think) I want one. 

1978 Oldsmobile Toronado - Big Ole Slice of Malaise Era Luxury

Today's Facebook find reeks of someone trying to ditch their old car before they have to pay the stipend to store it. Originally listed at $4,600, the price has been sawzalled to $3,200. Only 34,000-miles or so on its 44-year-old analog ticker too. Still available today five weeks after original listing. That's not a good sign. I mean, who wouldn't want a 1978 Oldsmobile Toronado? 

This darn thing is so "cheap", I might feel inclined to jump on it although, with this being the only picture of the interior, and this to show off its super low mileage, I get the sneaky feeling there might be something up with the insides. My concern would be getting stuck with it after I grew tired of it. Three-grand is still three grand, after all. 

If you're curious, "S" on the transmission selector is for "SPORT", although "sport" on an almost five-thousand-pound car powered by a 185-horsepower engine is relative. "SPORT" was simply a third-gear lockout. "L", or "low", locked out second and third gear. 

There is some quasi or semi-interesting history to this car what with it being a 1978, 1978 the last year for these cars before GM shrink-rayed them to a more manageable albeit still substantial size. It also has, debateably, the last great or really good V-8 engine built by Oldsmobile, that being the good old 403-cubic incher. Making all of 185-horsepower, which, give or take ten-to-forty horsepower, was about the most any engine made by the Big Three and a Quarter back then, it did make a stout 325-foot pounds of torque that gives this car a fighting chance to get up to freeway speed without it getting clobbered. No engine pictures either. This a barn find and they only detailed the exterior? 

You'll still get clobbered at the gas pump, though. Perhaps not as bad as what the Oldsmobile 455 engine would do to your wallet or debit card; the 455 the engine the 403 replaced starting in 1977 because GM believed they would never be able to get the 455 to pass ever stricter emissions and fuel economy standards. I'd figure seven-to-nine mpg around town, maybe twelve, thirteen if you're lucky on the highway. 

The coolest thing about these cars, although few would notice, was that these are front-wheel drive. While most cars today are "pulled" by their front wheels, back in the day, most cars were "pushed" by their rears. Thanks to what GM referred to as the "Unified Power Package", or "U.P.P.", the engine, transmission and differential were lumped together as one unit in front of the firewall. Pretty trick piece of engineering. It was so good and so seamless, there was zero torque-steer, unsuspecting drivers never noticed. Or cared. 

Why GM decided to use it only on the Toronado and very similar Cadillac Eldorado is a question us mortal car geeks will never get answered. Certainly, would have made more sense to use it on at least their mid-size models or even their compacts given the interior packaging efficiency front-wheel drive enables. You ever sit in a rear engine, 1960-1969 Chevrolet Corvair? Positively cavernous without the tunnel and the hump for the driveshaft. Rumor has it the "U.P.P." was initially intended to be used on intermediate sized cars but that plan was scrapped by GM higher-ups. 

Oh, but how will she drive? Well, despite being front-wheel drive, typical for the time period, actually. That means soft, cushy and silent. Over boosted power steering will providing little to no road feel and the front end will wander and need constant attention to keep in a straight line. Solid beam rear axle doing handling no favors save for providing isolation from the road.  

Combine the floaty ride and handling with sluggish engine performance, and what you have here is a big-ole slice of "Malaise Era" luxury. Yum. Gosh, what did I ever see in cars like this when I was younger?   

Looks like I've talked myself out of this thing. Which is therapeutic. Like I said, when I was younger, and for reasons that all but escape me now, old iron like this were "my thing". Now all I see is what they are or portended to be. What that was, much like old trappings of the wealthy, escapes me now too. 

(Bruce Springsteen's) 1960 Chevrolet Corvette - Corvette Winter

This photo of Bruce Springsteen and his 1960 Corvette, now known as "Corvette Winter", was shot in February, 1978 as part of the shoot for the artwork for Springsteen's 1978 album, "Darkness on the Edge of Town". It was shot by photographer Frank Stefanko in front of Stefanko's home in Haddenfield, New Jersey. 

 

 

Springsteen brought several sets of clothing to the session and Stefanko took a number of different photographs of the rising rock star over a several-day shoot. Springsteen also came to the shoot each day in a different vehicle. The day before "Corvette Winter" was shot, he showed up in a Chevrolet C/10 pickup. 

After a number of different poses, wardrobe changes and adjustments to lighting, Stefanko took a photo Springsteen believed was emulative of the characters and songs on the album he had just finished recording. Dark, gritty songs that were unlike anything on the romantic "Born to Run" album that catapulted Springsteen to superstardom. 

After the success of "Born to Run", Springsteen became embroiled in a long legal battle with his manager, Mike Appel. Springsteen claimed he received minimal publishing or royalties from the release of "Born to Run" and sued Appel. Appel, in turn, counter sued Springsteen going so far to block Springsteen from entering a recording studio. Thus, the near-three year "hiatus" between the releases of "Run" and "Darkness". 

The entire legal affair, which, purportedly, allegedly or conveniently, resulted not only in a wiser if not "darker" Springsteen, but in a follow up album to "Born to Run" that was somber if not downright depressing. Springsteen and his band recorded fifty-two songs for the album, many of which reflecting Springsteen's 1960's pop, rock and soul influences and sensibilities, but Springsteen insisted anything upbeat not be included on "Darkness". 

Springsteen has noted publicly that the only thing he got from the release of "Born to Run" was a grand piano and his 1960 Chevrolet Corvette. Springsteen, apparently, still has this car.  

With regards to the car, story goes that flush with cash after "Born to Run" went to number three on the Billboard Album 200 chart, Springsteen bought the car for $6,000 from a young attendant working the counter at an ice cream parlor in the Freehold, New Jersey area. Who knew that shucking ice cream in the mid-Seventies paid so well. Frank Stefanko said that Springsteen loved the car and was "everything to him". Clearly, Springsteen loved it enough that he spent almost as much on a then fifteen-year-old Corvette as a new, 1975 Corvette would have cost him. 

The above car, part of a display at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio in 2009-2010, is not the "Corvette Winter" Corvette. I thought about turning this entire blog into a rail about how the Rock Hall Corvette is not the "Corvette Winter" car but thought better of it. What would be the point? Especially considering that Springsteen exhibit was now more than a dozen years ago.  

Sadly, there isn't much information available about the car itself. Springsteen, allegedly, is a "car guy", although the definition of what a "car guy (or person)" is varies; not all of "us" are Jay Leno. Springsteen also has a 1963, split-rear-window, Corvette Sting Ray, a 1969 Ford XL convertible, a 1970 Ford F-100 pickup, a 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, and I'm sure he has others. A fan of "driver's" and not museum pieces, bless his Hungry Heart, clearly none of his drivers are as famous as the Corvette Winter Corvette. He chose it to be be featured in the March 2022 episode of the podcast that he does with President Obama. Obama even drove it. 

In publicity stills for the podcast, we see the 1964-vintage Crager SS rims on the car and not the 1960-correct wheel covers the "Rock Hall" car has. It also has raised-white-letter tires and not (yuck) whitewalls and we see the car lacks the Rock Hall car's optional two-tone paint scheme; I much prefer the look of no two-tone first-gen or "C1" Corvettes. The above car is the real deal. The Rock Hall car, again, is not. 

With so little information about the car itself, I'm left with plastering my face into the handful of pictures I can find of it attempting to find something, anything about the actual car. And, voila. Look - we see the radio to the right of Springsteen's knee is a Pioneer KP500. This is not insignificant although we don't know if he bought the car this way, installed the "K5" himself or had it installed. Not many aftermarket units back in the day looked as handsome and proper; especially attached to the dash and not a direct drop-in replacement. Smaller, more conventional looking (for the time period) "head units" can fit in the dash on these cars but require modifications; something most discerning Corvette cognoscenti would avoid at all costs. Especially on painfully rare first-generation or what are now referred to as "C1" Corvettes. Also, note Springsteen's grip on the steering wheel. That's the grip of a man on the wheel of a car that does not have power steering. Corvettes did not have power steering available as an option until 1963. There are pricey conversion kits available; I'm sure he can afford one. 

1960 Corvette's came with either a three- or four-speed manual transmission, or two-speed "Powerglide" automatics. From this photo we see that Springsteen's car has a manual, but I have no idea if it's the three- or four-speed. Corvette didn't get a three-speed "Turbo Hydramatic" (automatic transmission) until 1968. 

Seeing there's no tell-tale, "Fuel Injection" badge near the top of the front fenders, Springsteen's '60 doesn't have a fuel injected, 283-cubic inch, V-8 engine. All 1960 Corvettes were powered by 283's in various states of tune ranging from 230 to 315-horsepower. Springsteen's car probably came came from the factory with one of three carbureted 283 engines making either 230, 245 or 270-horsepower. These are SAE "gross" and not "net" ratings but still, a good amount of power for the time period. The fuel injection engines made either 275 or 315-horsepower. All 1960 Corvettes were convertibles, hard tops weren't available until 1963 And take note of the rear tire on the above photo, it's clearly offset by a good inch-and-half to two-inches: same as in the "Corvette Winter" photo. That's done, usually, with wheel-spacers between the wheel and in this case, the brake drum.  

 

It wasn't uncommon back-in-the-day for owners to modify the suspensions of their cars to make them ride and handle better. Seeing this car rides higher in the rear than stock and is "hunched" somewhat forward, safe to say it has heavier-duty leaf springs than it came from the factory with. The combination of the leaf springs and wheel spacers also gives the car a tough and (more) dangerous, edgy flare without compromising the design of the car. The raised-white-letters tires, which incidentally were not available to consumers until the mid-Sixties, adding to the mysterious ethos of "Corvette Winter". 

Somewhat disappointingly, in photos of Springsteen with President Obama, there's no offset on the rear wheels and the leaf springs appear stock. Just as well although the car in looking "more perfect", appears actually less authentic in in my opinion. It's less than it was when first photographed by Frank Stefanko in what has become known as "Corvette Winter". 

Springsteen was such a fan of the "Corvette Winter" photo that he chose it as the cover on his 2017 autobiography, "Born to Run". 

1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme - You Had to Be There

Might be hard to believe now, and had I not "been there" I might find it hard to believe as well, but the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe was extremely popular in the 1980's. So much so that they commanded a premium as used cars. That "premium" one of the reasons why I ended up with a 1982 Buick Riviera back in the day instead of a Cutlass, Pontiac Grand Prix or Chevrolet Monte Carlo. I found this '82 Cutlass on Facebook Marketplace recently for sale near my home here in Cleveland, Ohio. Asking price a seemingly reasonable $1,500. Well, reasonable for this day and age. 

Ad said it starts with jump and runs and drives although the brakes are shot. Appears rust free, though. That's a plus. Note she sits low on the driver's front; busted spring? Bent spindle? Best to trailer this back to the triple wide. I'd also want a good look underneath. The mud-caked tires tell me this was sitting in a field for a while. Again, remarkable that it has little to no rust. On the body anyway. Cars up here on the "North Coast" can appear perfectly find above deck; you get under them and they can resemble the Titanic in its current state. 

This interior appears to have all the charm of dirty underwear. Someone else's dirty tidy-whities while I'm at it. Bet it smells like an old wet dog and cigarettes. The dog smell easier to rid than cigarette stench. Seats will clean up but the door panels or what some refer to as "cards" will need replacing. Parts are available online, what isn't these days? But finding a perfect match is going to be a tough putt. This is atypically optioned for the era, too - meaning weird. Tilt and power driver seat yet crank windows? 

Not that it matters since the engine's probably going in the dumpster anyway but the poster of the ad claims this has an Oldsmobile 307-cubic inch V-8. Certainly no powerhouse but it could be worse. It could have Oldsmobile's 260-cubic inch V-8 that begat the 307, a Buick V-6 or worse yet, an Oldsmobile Diesel. Again, you'd be making this into what you'd want it to be anyway. Who's up for an "LS swap?" 

GM updated their 1978 vintage intermediate coupes for 1981; the four-door sedans and the wagons they left the same. The refresh on these coupes did wonders for them although, through my foggy goggles, they're still too narrow compared to how long they are. Just as well since by the time these came to market, the style and fashion conscious were beginning to look elsewhere to make their "statements". 

GM apparently didn't get the memo or decided not to pay attention to it when they introduced the front-wheel-drive replacements for these cars in 1988 as they came in only as coupes. Of course coupe lover me didn't have an issue with it. 

These things certainly still have their fans, though. I went back to find it a day or so later to possibly inquire about it and I couldn't find it. Just as well as this would be a tough putt to get past the wife. Rough examples like this some of the last "old school" cars that are still dirt cheap to buy, well, when they look like this, and buyers can turn them into anything they want. 

 

1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass S - Was S for "Slow?"

What's the slowest car you've ever driven? For me it's a toss up between an HT4100 powered 1982 Cadillac Sedan deVille and a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass with Oldsmobile's 260-cubic inch V-8 I test drove back in the day. That and an old friends 1.6-liter, 1984 Chevrolet Chevette. Something tells me, though, this 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass "S", that's in painfully mint-condition but has a Buick 231-cubic inch V-6 still nestled between its front fenders, might be slower than any of those cars. 

In more ways than one, power is over rated. However, you do need at least some semblance of it to make life enjoyable and to make driving at least somewhat less than a chore. No such case here with a car weighing the dark side of two-tons and saddled with an engine making 105-horsepower and 185-foot pounds of torque. Throw in a soggy 2.4:1 rear axle, perhaps even a 2.29:1, and zero-to-sixty might come around in about seventeen-to-eighteen seconds. However, in a car this big, that'll feel much longer. And it's not just "off-the-line" that this car is slow. Merging with freeway traffic and changing lanes will need to be judiciously planned too. Did the "S" in Cutlass S denote "slow?"

How and why did General Motors sell a car so grossly underpowered? Blame the 1973 OPEC embargo that doubled the price of a gallon of gas. What was worse, gas prices stayed high after the embargo hammering sales of large, thirsty cars. The Big Three were left scrambling to make their gas guzzlers better on gas and on paper, at least, putting six-cylinder engines in big heavy cars like this made sense. In reality, the "little" engines were over-worked negating most fuel economy gains. Especially around town. 

Through my foggy windshield, the Buick V-6 puts a serious damper on this very cherry Cutlass. It's for sale down near Akron with a $19,995 asking price. Seems a heady price to pay for a car that's going to be quite the handful to drive. Especially with today's over powered monsters zippy around you. Fossil fuel or electrically powered. Perhaps at half the cost I could do the mental gymnastics to perhaps make a crate engine swap make sense. To do that right could run you five, seven or even ten-thousand dollars. 

This car, that has only twenty-four-thousand miles on its forty-five year old ticker, worth thirty grand? Perhaps to someone but most certainly not to me. Twenty-thousand dollars but with a perfect "LS swap" already performed? Umm, let me sleep on that one.