1990 Cadillac Eldorado Touring Coupe - Etcetera

I wish this 1990 Cadillac Eldorado Touring Coupe was closer to my home here on the west side of Cleveland, Ohio. It's up in Romulus, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit and it's a good 2 1/2 drive for me one way, Just as well as i might fall in love with it. Just 88K on its 33-year-old digital ticker, Facebook Marketplace asking price is $3,000. 

Oh, how us Cadillac cognoscenti hated disliked these cars when they first stabbed our collective eyeballs when GM rolled these out for MY 1986. Sharing much DNA with the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Toronado, these starved to death little cars went a long way to tank any prestige the models had. Sales crated by some 60-percent 1985 to 1986 and they never recovered. Despite, in the end, some pretty gallant efforts on behalf of GM. 

A grafting of additional sheet metal fore and aft for 1988 improved aesthetics somewhat but there was only so much that could be done with a woefully compromised design. Cadillac redesigned their exclusive V-8 engine for 1987 increasing displacement to 4.5-liters, horsepower ticked up to 155 from 130-140. Port-fuel injection replaced the throttle-body set up for 1990 bumping bhp to 180. For 1990, the 4.5 was enlarged to 4.9-liters and horsepower rose to a nice round 200. 

That said, my 269-horsepower, 3,500-pound 2009 Toyota RAV4 V-6 will smoke this similarly weighty ETC. And it runs on regular unleaded too. What's more, I can't beat my RAV's build quaility, reliability and serviceability. Etcetera, etcetera. 

These cars were still too small and stubby but the "Touring Coupe" package, new for 1990. which included larger wheels, tires, thicker anti-roll bars, an electronically controlled suspension, and a quicker steering ratio than non-ETC's, dressed things up probably best they could be. 

In a vacuum, these were not bad looking cars and could perform like no other Cadillac's prior; save for the much pricier and even more gimmicky "Allante" that was nothing more than a two-passenger Eldorado on a shorter wheelbase. With an insanely expensive to build body.

But they were a flop. Problem was, well-heeled yupsters wouldn't be caught dead in them and they still weren't "Cadillac-enough" for their traditional clientele. 

Still, as far as cheap cars go, you could do a lot worse. Keep in mind, though, parts could be difficult to come by. Remember, this is a, he swallows hard, now a thirty-three gong on thirty-four-year-old car. 

 

1977 Buick Electra Limited - All Grown Up

I've surmised my appreciation of 1977-1979 Buick Electra two-door sedans, can't really call them "coupes", stems from my brief experience inside one during the summer of 1978 during my parent's inane used Cadillac search. Bored silly with the sales process and my parent's incessant jack hammering of salespeople, I had wandered off on the dealership lot where they would end up buying the 1972 Sedan deVille, that would define the earliest if not darkest days of my driving life, and was delighted to find the driver's door unlocked on a powder blue, used, 1977 Buick Electra two-door, not unlike this 1977 Electra Limited. Then as now, I knew a good opportunity when I saw one. I slowly, gently and carefully opened the huge door and slithered inside making sure not to have the door touch the car for sale next to it. 

I fumbled around with the power window buttons that were off, the power-door locks that did work and, much to my delight even though, again, the car was off, the power driver seat worked. I was fourteen at the time and short for my age at maybe five-feet-four, maybe five and I was terrified of the thought of driving my father's impossibly large 1970 Electra. On that '77, however, with the seat jacked all the way up and as close as possible as I could get to the wheel and have my feet touch the pedals, little young me felt he could actually drive it. The cushy velour-ish seats felt decadent too and way nicer than any of the Cadillac's my parents were looking at with their austere and hard, Ostrich-leather. I was in the lap of luxury and I thought I could actually drive it. That was how the "other half" lived and I liked it. A lot. 

Unlike many an automobile enthusiast of my, ahem, vintage, I'm not the biggest fan of General Motors "Class of 1977", downsized full-sized cars, especially the four-door models. I don't outright dislike them, but I find their styling bland if not laisse-faire, their lack of engineering advancement, seriously, they were nothing more than a somewhat shrunken rehash of what GM had been doing for over fifty-years at the time, disconcerting. As they say, though, there are exceptions to everything. And whether or not it was puckish, tweenie me playing with one or not four-and-a-half decades ago, the 1977-1979 Buick Electra two-door sedans are that exception. 

I must really like these cars because I can see past the sickly, puke-green exterior and blue velvet seats that look like Elvis threw up all over on this one. As they say, love is blind.  The 1970's were full of horrendous color combinations like this and this is relatively tame compared to other schemes from back then. Throw a white, $99 "Earl Sheib paint job on this one and you've have a sweet ride. Cost of a "real" paint job might run you half the $9,000 asking price for this car. Will you be paying by check or cash? 

General Motors' "Great Downsizing Epoch" sawzalled eleven-inches and some 800-pounds from the 1976 Electra but it was still a BIG car at 222 inches long. And while there isn't one "Class-of-1977" full size GM car that I'd want in my "Jay Leno Fantasy Garage", alright, maybe an Electra for old time's sake, even though I'm an ardent fan of the oversized 1971-1976 GM full-size line, I can tell you first hand that those cars were comically too large. It wasn't just that they were so freakin' long either - it was their damn width that freaked me out. At just under eighty-inches wide, they might as well have been assembled by Peterbuilt. My palms still get sweaty thinking about driving one on the oh-so-narrow, "Pre-War" streets I grew up on back on Long Island just east of the City line.  The downsized '77's comparatively anorexic at 77-inches port-to-starboard. 

1977-1984 Buick Electra's share their chassis body shells, doors, roof panels, transmissions and many ancillary components with the Cadillac deVille and Oldsmobile 98. Said "Downsizing Epoch" also brought about "divisional sharing" of engines - our green machine here sports an Oldsmobile built, 185-horsepower, 403 cubic-inch chuffer. Yes, an Oldsmobile engine in a Buick; blasphemy. What's more, you could also find that 403, which was a bored out version of the venerable Oldsmobile "350",  under the hood of 1977-1979 Pontiac Trans Am's equipped with automatic transmissions; So, what's more nefarious, the big Olds engine in a Buick or in a Trans Am? Then again, did or does anyone really care? Some things are important only if you make them out to be; sometimes it's best to under-communicate. Pontiac also used the 403 on their 1977-1979 Bonneville and Catalina in high altitude areas and in California.

One thing I'd insist on if I had to have this '77 is I'd make sure it came with the optional 3.08 gears and not the standard 2.41's. And if it didn't, even though the 3.08's with the torquey 403 would probably deliver pre-downsizing gas mileage, I'd have them swapped in. No one's going to be using this as a daily driver or taking it cross-country anyway. C'mon, let's make the most of what this has to offer without going crazy modding the engine. 320 foot-pounds out of the box! Drop it in "D", stab the gas and watch that Electra hood ornament shoot up to the sky. 

GM updated their 1977 full-size line for 1980 with what is referred to as their "aero-treatment" and it did wonders for them aesthetically although, through my foggy goggles, they jumped the shark with what Buick did to my Electra. Gone was the sharp, crisp lines that would make Don Draper weak-kneed, the rear windshield formalized, the whole package got old man dorkified. Let's not go there with what they did under hood. Standard V-6, anyone? At least they had the good sense not to make the Olds diesel the default mill. 

Nothing brings back memories for me like an old car. To this day I think of that brief moment when I was behind the wheel of that '77 Electra and I felt all grown up feeling that not only could I actually drive, but that I could drive a big car like that.  

1985 Buick Grand National (Engine) - In a 1977 Corvette? Blasphemy!

Of everything that's wrong and right with my 1977 Chevrolet Corvette, perhaps the one thing that I'm not concerned with is its engine. Born with the standard "L48", 350 cubic-inch, 180-horsepower V-8, I'm not sure but would swear that sometime over the last 46-years, the engine has been rebuilt. Perhaps stroked. I've had the car 11-years now and have done nothing to the engine beyond tuning it up. While its standard cast-iron intake is (still) fed with "Four-Barrels of Freedom" (Rochester "Quadra-Jet"), with its gentle tremor at idle, it must have a mild cam. God bless Ohio, there's no catalytic converter either, just two straight pipes all the way to two Magnaflow mufflers tucked under the rear quarters. She sounds mean but not too mean and the whole things goes pretty good. I have no trouble keeping up with traffic on the highway although, in a C3, 50-mph feels like 75 and 75 feels like 200. I don't want for power, but it was cheaply available, I might just be tempted. 

If I wasn't to hot-rod what I already have, there's no shortage of options available to me on Facebook Marketplace from General Motors alone to drop in it. Doesn't mean I have to go with GM, though. A honkin' Ford "Powerstroke" diesel or V-10 might be just what I'm looking for although I'd probably have great difficulty shoehorning either one in and then there's fabricating engine mounts, what to do with the transmission, then drive shaft etc. Chrysler HEMI? Toyota 1GR-FE (rear-wheel-drive 3.5-liter) V-6? I know I stand a better chance of finding kits and "how-to" guides for a swap if I stay within the GM family. High compression Oldsmobile 455 anyone? Cadillac 500? How about this 3.8-liter, turbocharged V-6 that came out of a 1985 Buick Grand National? 

I can't think of another engine swap from within the GM corral that would be any cooler than stuffing this sixer in my car - even if a six-cylinder engine in a Corvette is blasphemous. Most anything else that wasn't a "Chevy" might be cringe worthy or worse yet, make my car harder to sell if and when I choose to unload it. I'm not liking the sound of having to explain, for instance, why I dropped a 300+ horsepower V-6 from a late model Ford Mustang into it; especially when, again, there are so many GM options available to me. Not to mention a gaggle of L98, LS and LT1 GM V-8 engines out there. This blown Buick V-6, though, this would be cool. Although, I have to wonder if it would make my car faster? For certain it might help handling as it's a good hundred pounds lighter all in than the SBC in my '77. C3's need all the help they can get in the handling deportment. 

Numbers don't lie, though. Even though by 1985 Buick had managed to ring out 200-horsepower and 300-foot pounds of torque out of their venerable, "231", compared to what I have now, again, would it make a difference? Worse yet, would I be going "backwards"? Contemporary road tests of an '85 Grand National peg it zero-to-sixty in 7.5 seconds, the quarter mile in 15.7 at 87 mile-per-hour. While I was unable to find any data online regarding the acceleration numbers for a 1977 Corvette with the L48 engine, Road & Track tested a four-speed, 210-horsepower, "L82" 1977 Corvette doing zero-to-sixty in 6.8 seconds, the quarter mile in 15.5-seconds at 92-mph. I've hillbilly timed my car zero-to-sixty in seven-seconds; and that's with a good amount of tread melting tire spin too. Like I said, my car ain't slow. 

Have to hand it to General Motors and Buick for what they were able to do with their turbo V-6 engine in a very short amount of time, though. Well, short amount of time with regards to developing the turbo version of it. The Buick 231 cubic-inch V-6 has DNA all the way back to 1962 but they first bolted a turbo to it in 1976 for use in a Buick Century that paced the 1976 Indianapolis 500. That engine had its boost dialed up to 22-psi (whoa!) helping the engine to make some 300-horsepower, but the general public never saw anything close to that engine in a production car. 

Buick's first use of a turbo V-6 in a passenger car was in 1978 and that version of "the turbo", four-barrel carburetor and all, made 165-horsepower. Problem was, the go-fast pressure took forever to spool up and once expensed, was gone until it built up again. Fun while it lasted but made for a rather unusual if not tedious driving experience. Especially if someone checked the turbo option box for its performance potential. 

Things didn't get really interesting, however, until the advent of sequential port-fuel-injection (SFI), distributor-less, "wasted spark" ignition, mass airflow, crank and camshaft sensors and a computer that could really manage all this stuff come 1984. All that techy stuff helped the little engine that could crank out the 200-horses my Facebook Marketplace engine here could be making if were running. Apparently, it's not, hence, it's $450 asking price. $750 if I want the 700R4 transmission it was born with. Decisions, decisions. Allegedly, it needs a crank sensor, that's a $400 part on ebay. If that's all this engine needs this could be a bargain. Especially if you can get the tranny thrown in for close to the asking price for just the engine. 

Now, if this was the 3.8 turbo from a 1986 or 1987 Grand National\GNX that was intercooled and came with an updated turbocharger, it might be a whole different ball game. That engine purportedly made 276-horsepower, but most wonks believe GM grossly underrated that engine and claim it made north of 300. If one of those was listed for just $450 and simply needed a crank sensor, I might be filler busting the wife to approve the purchase order. A 1987 Buick GNX could roar from zero-to-sixty in 4.9-seconds, the quarter in 13.9-seconds and 98-mph. That's pretty good even by today's standards. 

BTW, a 1985 Corvette with the game changing, 230-horsepower, "L98", reportedly, could do zero-to-sixty in 5.7-seconds, the quarter mile in 14.4 at 97-mph. So, guess what I'm seriously trolling FB Marketplace for these days. That engine, that's also bulletproof reliable, would really make a difference in my '77, especially later versions that cranked out 245-hp and 330 foot-pounds. This turbo V-6? Gosh, who knows. Still, would make for an interesting chatter and fodder at car shows. That sort of thing doesn't row my boat, but I know it does for a lot of people. 

Chevrolet experimented with turbocharging a 1978 L82 Corvette, but it burst into flames and was destroyed during testing. 

 1985 grand national 3.8 engine complete with harness, computer, turbo, radiator and accessories shown $450 believe to need a crank sensor car had no spark so I've never heard it run can include trans for an extra $300

1977 Pontiac Catalina - Proof Is In The Pudding

I found this pristine 1977 Catalina on Facebook Marketplace the other morning for sale down in Akron. Not that it matters on a car this old but there are less than 35,000-miles on its 46-year-old ticker and has an asking price of $8,500. I guess the asking price is fair - although, this is about as rental grade as it got back then and for that money, in my opinion, you could get "more car" for your money than an old bone stripper. What I found interesting about this car, though, and I never realized this before, is how much it looks like a Buick LeSabre two-door coupe from the same era. 

As they say, proof is in in the pudding. Above is a 1977 Buick LeSabre. From interior accoutrements to powertrains, the Catalina and LeSabre came similarly equipped too. That meant relatively spartan accommodations, power windows, seats, locks all optional, air conditioning wasn't standard either although most came from the factory with it. Options were a la carte which is why so many cars of this era are equipped so differently. Made no sense to me then and certainly less so now why General Motors would go through the trouble if not expense of lightly disguising some of their makes and models when they were, for all intents and purposes, identical. Perhaps GM wasn't as margin conscious as we may have thought. To some degree anyway. Ha, as if. 

The roof lines on the Oldsmobile and Chevrolet versions of the Catalina and LeSabre go a long way towards disguising how similar the cars are. Oldsmobile touted their exclusive, formal roof line on the 88's of the vintage; I think it makes this car look like an unfinished Cub Scout pinewood derby entry. That blind spot can't be fun to live with either. Above is a "Delta 88 Royale", if you wanted to skip the damn vinyl top, you'd have to step down to a "Delta 88 coupe". Personally, I'd "step down" to a 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Vinyl top and all. 

Through my foggy goggles, the belle of the roof line ball of GM's class of 1977 full-size (B-body) coupes is the Chevrolet Impala and Caprice. That's actually three separate pieces of glass glued together, you can't bend glass like that and have it retain its rigidity; especially being as thin as it is. I'm actually ambivalent towards of GM's 1977-1979 GM "B-body" coupes but of the lot of them, the Chevrolet rows my boat the least. Save for the far out rear windshield. The rest of the car looks under-designed. Your mileage may vary, see dealer for details. 

Pontiac may have been GM's "excitement" division but in terms of profit margins, they were GM's "smallest". Purely speculating if not hypothesizing, would make sense GM would skimp corners in the design and then the manufacturing process and use the Buick design on the Pontiac; if they had to have a "Pontiac" in the first place. Doing so would enable higher volume Oldsmobile to market the exclusivity of their (frumpy) "formal roof" on their 88 and it doesn't take an engineer or an accountant to surmise the LeSabre's roof had to be whole lot cheaper and simpler to produce than the Chevrolet's.  

When General Motors rebooted their full-size models for 1980, the distinctive roof lines were gone on the (B-body) coupes. Gone too was the Catalina two-door; you wanted a big Pontiac with only two-doors in 1980 and 1981 you had to pony up to a Bonneville. Come 1982, though, the big Pontiac show was over - albeit temporarily. The "Catalina" nameplate gone forever too. The Bonneville nameplate lived on as a tarted up version of the intermediate Grand LeMans through 1987, then as a front-wheel-driver through 2005. 

Legend has it Pontiac dealerships complained they didn't have a full-size car to sell  in 1982 and 1983 so from 1984-1986, they rebadged the Canadian version of the Chevrolet Caprice and called it, "Parisienne". 

1976 Ford Mustang Cobra - Pick of the Litter

Those of us auto enthusiasts who grew up in the teeth of "The Malaise Era" have our pick of the litter (make that used kitty litter) when it comes to what cars epitomized that period of time when it seemed the Big Three couldn't do anything right. From the AMC Pacer to the Chevrolet Citation, Ford Granada to GM Diesels to the Cadillac Cimarron, there's no shortage of stinking turds that just wouldn't flush away. In my opinion, though, the epitome of them all was the Ford Pinto based  Mustang "II". I found this 1976 Mustang II Cobra on Facebook Marketplace recently and it brought back a lot of memories; none of them good. 

              

What with the folks across the street from my family and I where I grew up on Long Island having a 1965 Mustang "Hardtop" and a 1972 "Grande", I was fairly versed in "Ford Mustang" and when I heard that Ford was coming with a new Mustang for 1974 based on their Pinto, nine-year-old me instinctively knew it was not going to be good. And I was right;  the teeny-tiny Mustang II was no "Mustang" at least not in comparison to what I saw on a daily basis across the street from me. I doused my sorrows in Nestle's instant chocolate milk making it with whole milk - desperate times meant desperate measures. Little did I know at the time the homely little car was also a putrid transportation conveyance. 

The fact that the Mustang II was more than a foot shorter than the elephantine 1971-1973 Mustang wasn't the issue with its aesthetics - just because a car is small doesn't mean its design should suffer. However, the "II's" design did suffer along with driving dynamics that were decidedly non-European with Ford softening the Pinto's suspension and adding heavy sound proofing and insulation to cull the Pinto's raucous. Built on a slightly lengthened chassis the Ford Pinto was built on, it was almost two-inches wider than a 1964 Mustang meanwhile six-inches shorter lending to its stubby proportions. Stubby proportions accentuated by huge front and rear overhangs - proportionally, some of the largest in history to that point. 13-inch wheels only adding to the "bulked up Pinto" axiom which, again, the car actually was. 

Wouldn't you know it, though, timing being everything, Ford sold tons of "II's" for model year 1974. In fact, it became one of the best first model-year selling cars of all time just as the car it purportedly emulated did just a decade prior. What a difference ten years can make, though. Whereas the original Mustang was a seminal, niche creating design that transformed the market if not the auto industry, the 1974 Mustang II was but a benefactor of timing with the start of the OPEC oil embargo coinciding with the new model year. 

Ford sold nearly 386,000 "II's" in 1974, that number dropping by roughly half for 1975 as the embargo ended, fuel prices stabilized and buyers came to their senses. A decade prior, after the initial fervor, Mustang sales remained strong as a, err, horse. "II" sales hovering around 175,000 a year through the end of production in 1978. Granted, that number is nothing to sneeze at but pales in comparison to the 600,000+ sold in 1966 and the million-plus out the door in the Mustang's protracted first model-year. Ford is lucky to sell 100,000 Mustangs a year these days. 

Revisionist history being what it is, Ford didn't introduce the Mustang II in response to the OPEC embargo, planning for it began as far back as 1971 when Ford realized they had a turkey on their hands with their new-for'71, "big" Mustang. In fairness, give Ford product planners some credit for deciding to downsize in a day and age of relentless upsizing. Then again, with sales shrinking, what choice did they have? Make it even bigger? Then again, the did upsize the Mercury version of the Mustang up and out of the pony car segment starting in 1974. Ah, my wonder years. How they sucked. 

The only thing "Mustang" about a "II" was Ford's use of disparate Mustang styling cues their designers had used on Mustangs for the previous decade. The Ford Mustang II was a hodge-podge of ideas, themes and eras with one, sorry, hoof, stuck in the 1960's, another, (don't say it) glued in the 1970's. Us Mustang cognoscenti could only hope for better days to come and they eventually did, sort of, come 1979 with the introduction of the Fox-body Mustangs. Shows you just how desperate we must have been if the trucky, boxy Fox-body Mustang was construed as the second coming of the original. It wasn't, of course, but it was a marked improvement and wasn't a design evolution of the "II". 

1993 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible - Shimmy, Shimmy

My on again, off again search for a fourth-generation Corvette convertible continues and my latest muse was this 1993 I found in a dealership lot on my way home from the office recently. Resplendent in 40-Anniversary badging, it has only 60,000-miles on its analog, ruby-red ticker. LT1, automatic and an asking price, at the time, of $16,500. Woof. I don't care what kind of shape this is in, that's a crazy price. I don't care for the color either but what the heck, let's go for a ride and see what the top of the rate card can buy me. 

Chevrolet made these fourth-generation, or what are referred to as "C4's", from 1984 through 1996 and I find many a fan of the "Stingray-body" or third-gen (C3) Corvettes are begrudging fans of them. I get that. Even I, given the choice and all things being equal, would choose a C3 over a C4 but things are not equal. Not even close. A C3 rides and handles like a truck built in a third-world nation compared to a C4. Through my foggy goggles, most of the design flaws of the C4, and there are many, are forgiven,  when Chevrolet made convertible C4's available starting in 1986. 

First things first, for the uninitiated, getting into and out of C4's is ridiculously hard and you either find it charming or you want no part of them after throwing your back out. These cars are impossibly low to the ground, and you have to step up and over frame rails that are absurdly high; it's like jumping up and into a garbage can. I've never been a passenger in one but on the driver's side, you have to use the steering wheel as a grip bar as you gymnastically swing yourself into the overstuffed bucket. Once you're in you feel like you're in a spaceship, but getting there is quite the struggle. It ain't for everyone. 

While material fit-and-finish on 1993 Corvette's is improved over earlier C4's. it's still, forgive my bluntness, crap. The plastic is chintzy, when you tap on it, the dash rings hollow, the sun visors feel like they're straight out of a Chevette too. Hope you're not adverse to digital dashes, keep in my this one with its mixture of digital and analog, is far superior to the junky video game set up 1984-1989 C4's had. I'd stay away from those although there are analog kits that drop right in replacing them. You'll pay through the nose for it, though. Hope you're handy!  

This one started up without a hitch and sounded marvelous. However, throttle tip-in was unimpressive,  My '77 with maybe 200-horsepower feels spritely, snappy in comparison. Probably due to its tall, 2.73:1 axle, you don't get the first impression you're behind the wheel of a 300-horsepower automobile, my '77 with god's-green-earth 3.08 gears out back feels spritely and energetic at parking lot speeds. On the road, it's a different story. Stab the gas and this takes off. It's not incredibly fast, it's more in line with many of today's cars as power has become such a, yawn, commodity. Contemporary road tests peg a '93 with the LT1 and an automatic going from zero-to-sixty in 5.6-seconds. Quite fast for the times but rather unspectacularly these days. My son's 2017 Camaro V-6 zips to sixty in 5.2 seconds, a C8 can rip to sixty in under three seconds. That's insane. 

These cars ride surprisingly well, so does my '77 for that matter. The ride wasn't flinty, jarring and harsh like it was on a 2002 Camaro Z28 I had years ago, even the 2005 Ford Mustang GT I had most recently. Amazing what an independent rear suspension can do to smooth the edges off a sports car's ride.  Trust me on that one. I think I could live with this car all day long. Maybe even take an overnighter with the wife. That would be nice. Anyway, similar to my '77, it's a different story when the roads get rough as is often the case up here on "The North Coast" (Ohio). I hit a heavily pock-marked road on my test drive and I felt the car was going in every direction possible save for forward. Shimmy, shimmy, coco-pop. And then some. 

A lot of that had to be due to the lack of a roof adding rigidity. That and this car ain't no spring chicken despite the low number on its odometer. 1993 was not thirty years ago, was it? Good grief. 

Funny, during most of my test drive when I wasn't trying to put the gas pedal through the floor boards, I I actually found the car rather...ummm, gosh, dare I say, ordinary? Made me wonder what the point of a Corvette was in the first place if it doesn't feel anymore special than say my wife's 1995 Lexus SC400. This one was impossible to get into and out of, is claustrophobia inducing with the top up, the steering is annoyingly heavy and didn't feel all that much faster in a straight line that my V-6 powered, 2009 Toyota RAV4 is. Boy, that sounds really sad. What's more, this '93 was not half the visceral, manly challenge to maneuver that my restored but still woefully crude yet entertaining '77 is. You "drive" my '77, this thing I felt I was somewhat along for the ride. 

Which makes me wonder what it is I'm looking for exactly in one of these. My wife and I already have a "sporty" convertible in our 2004 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GTS that's quite the nimble little handler,  I'll stop short of saying it's out and out entertaining to drive not that I found this '93 "gotta-have-it" awesome. Out little Mitsu drop top is comfortable enough and doesn't come with the litany of sacrifices a fourth-gen Corvette forces one make. 

My plan right now if I find a C4 convertible is to sell the Eclipse and my '77 Corvette; the C4 taking the place of both. On paper at least. My 26-year-old, semi-auto-enthusiast son would kill me as he's not a fan of any C4 and adores our '77 although he knows how primitive a ride it is. Time is right at the moment to find a good deal on a C4 drop top too as folks who are sick of theirs and want to off load them want to do so before they have to pay for winter storage. Which, up here, is literally just days away. 

P.S., this is still for sale more than a month after my test drive and they've dropped the price, incrementally, to $15,300. That's better but the closer I could get it to ten-grand the more I'd be willing to put up with funky color. 

 

1969 Cadillac Calais - House Calls

Seemingly whenever my younger brother and I were sick, when we were very young, our mother would call "Doc Harrington" and he'd come over to our home and examine us. Yes, he made house calls. Doc was a handsome, charming, older gentleman and a wonderful human, I swear my mother had a crush on him as she turned into a babbling goofball whenever he came over. He also drove a greenish, light blue Cadillac just like this 1969 Calais. This one has New York plates, so it's possible this is his car. Long shot, yes, but it is possible. 

Doc's block long Cadillac left an indelible impression on five- or six-year-old me. In addition to knowing that I was eventually going to be feeling better, it symbolized warmth, benevolence, and an unintimidating yet unwavering authority; sadly, things sorely missing otherwise in my life at the time. I also thought it cool as hell as few if any Cadillac's have since. 

Figures since "Doc Harrington's Cadillac" was part of GM's golden age of design from 1948-1976. Anything before 1948 I find too antiquely, anything after 1976 too, too...I don't know. Familiar? It's also part of GM's class-of-1965 full size models, what some say, and I concur, the best of GM's Post-War offerings. Thus, despite this one's patina and shot-to-pieces interior, has a lot to offer. This Facebook Marketplace find is fairly priced, it seems, at $1,800. The closer you get it to $1,000 the better. You're going to spend three times the difference just reupholstering the seats. 

Not counting the Eldorado, which was an entirely different beast and a half, Cadillac offered three different versions of essentially the same car for 1969.  At the top of the line was the four-door only, pillared Fleetwood series, then the bread-and-butter Coupe and Sedan deVille hard tops and then, quoting the Cadillac brochure, the "easiest step to the pleasures of Cadillac ownership", the Calais two- and four-door hardtops. Save for the Fleetwoods, for 1969, Cadillac only offered hard tops whereas GM's other divisions also came in pillared versions. Just as today, Cadillac was GM's smallest division by volume produced and sold but its most profitable. Best to offer less and charge a king's ransom for it. 

The big difference between a Calais and deVille were the baubles, bits, trinkets, gizmo's and accessories available. For instance, Calais' seats were leather "textured", there was no vinyl top option, an AM radio was standard, and you had to order a power driver's seat and tilting steering column. But, just like the big boy deVille, Calais came standard with four cigarette lighters. Priorities. 

Unlike Doc Harrington himself, however, his car was all fluff and no stuff as we say. General Motors had long stopped trying to make Cadillac's anything more special than a Buick Electra or Oldsmobile 98, heck, throw in a Pontiac Bonneville and Chevrolet Caprice too by 1969. What had made a Cadillac a "Cadillac" was its engineering innovation; that stuff's expensive to keep coming up with especially if it's not amortized across different lines. By the end of the 1960's, most if not all of Cadillac firsts had trickled down to "lesser" GM makes and models and Cadillac had little to thump its hood over than image if not sheer pretense. I mean, seriously, what is this page from a Cadillac brochure attempting to convey? 

Seems fitting that a man of Doc Harrington's means yet humble nature would drive a Calais. You wouldn't want your traveling pediatrician showing up to your door to treat your child driving a Chevy or Dodge, would you? Then again, you don't want them showing off exactly how good they had it either. Fine line to walk and Cadillac walked that rope quite well back then even if it was all for show.