I'm so freaked out by the price of used cars these days that when I come across something interesting although I know is completely impractical if not absurd, yet is priced fairly reasonably, I'm kind of like, "yeah, I could make that work." Take this 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am for instance. For sale about an hour or so from my home up here in Cleveland, Ohio with just 60,000 miles or so on its forty-year-old ticker, it has an asking price of "just" $7,995. No steal by any means but in a world where a ten-year old Honda Civic with this mileage would command twice as much money, perhaps even more, this, on paper at least, could work. Right? Ahem, riiiight.
Along with its similar corporate cousin, the Chevrolet Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird was all new for 1982. Seven inches shorter overall than the very long in the tooth models they replaced, riding on a wheelbase almost seven inches shorter and weighing some five-hundred pounds less, critics lauded their handling prowess and good looks. Some scribes going so far to call them the best handling cars in America at the time which, when you think about it, wasn't saying that much.
So, just how wrong would one of these be for me to knock the snot out of as a "daily"? Especially considering the used car lot is so desperate to get rid of this before winter that they'd knock another grand off the asking price for me? Well, my all-to-brief test drive answered just about every question I could have about it.
As cameras tend to do, this looks much better in pictures than it does in person. It's got a fair number of chips and nicks, there's a "good" dent behind the passenger door that looks like someone tried to unsuccessfully pull out, the rear shocks are toast, the hood doesn't close all the way flush, and the driver's seat has some considerable wear to it. The good is the seating and pedal position are vastly superior to the odd layout in the fourth-generation Camaro's I've had, the engine started right up, sounded great, and acceleration, while hardly "sporty", was adequate.
The bad was that while the seating position was good, the seats themselves, while appearing to be quite handsome, were dreadful. Flimsy. Cheap. Unsupportive. The wear on the driver's seat is all but hidden by this photo - it's bad enough that it would have to addressed immediately. Perhaps the seats would be ok on short jaunts, but for someone who'd be driving most times a hundred miles or more at a clip, there's no way my backside wouldn't be aching afterwards. And as compliant as the ride was, at least compared to what I remember these cars having, it was still quite flinty; the squishy rear shocks doing the whole car no favors. These cars have an element of crude some find charming and part of their visceral appeal. Fun, perhaps, as a weekend jaunter like my 1977 Corvette is, but as a "daily", I know the lack of refinement would grow old. Fast.
I walked away feeling somewhat crestfallen although I knew it would have been a very long putt if I even really liked it. Even at seven-grand. This is a $3,000 car and even at that price the wife would be just a tad incredulous. There's also the reliability factor; the three fourth-generation Camaro's I've had, were hardly stalwarts when it came to being dependable. They are all but simple to work on though; these some of the last "old school" cars us shade tree hack mechanics can actually wrench on.
Still, if I was looking for a weekend toy, I could do a whole lot worse than this little old bird although the price of admission is more than twice would I would be comfortable with paying. NADA pegs these average retail at $9,800, low around $6,000, high retail $15,800.
No comments:
Post a Comment