1967 Dodge Polara - Smoldering Hot, Mid-Century Design

The Chrysler Corporation had some "out there" designs in the 1960's, some tapped down, bland ones too. This 1967 Dodge Polara hard top coupe appears to be a little of both. 

She's all business up front...

All party out back and a rager at that. That's some smoldering hot, midcentury design and I like it. You either get it or you don't. 

The rear side profile gets a little wonky. Through my goggles it's fussy, overly complicated and unfinished looking. Send that flying buttress to General Motors finishing school. 

This popped up on Facebook Marketplace recently down in bucolic Greenville, Ohio about forty-five minutes north of Dayton in the southwest part of the state. Asking price is $7,000. Say that slowly into this massive trunk so it echos back on you. Seven, seven. Thousand, thousand. Dollars, dollars. 

For your seven-grand you get a "318" car that has a new carburetor, fuel pump, fuel sending unit and alternator. 

There's no air conditioning and the brakes aren't boosted but at least you get a two-pot master cylinder. She does have power steering although you should note that the dip-stick top for the reservoir is missing.  

Interior is amazingly tight except for what appears to be a little wear on the driver's seat back. Looks repairable, though. I'd get that taken care of ASAP as it's only going to get worse. 

The big "owie", of course, is the paint finish or lack of one. I know a lot of people in the "Tri-Sate", Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana region love the rough patina look but it's not my cup of coolant. All I see is body work that to do it right, will run you at least what you paid for the car. 

Which negates any value proposition for me, not that I really saw any in the first place. If the engine was hot-rodded or if this was a 383 car, I might think a little differently but seven-grand, for this, friend-oh, seems quite steep. 

1986 Cadillac Sedan deVille - Toughskins

Sears "Toughskins". The scourge of my adolescent wardrobe. 

Like those times my mother would return from a Sears shopping spree with fresh, bell bottom, plaid "Toughskins" for me, my heart sank the first time I saw one of Cadillac's new for 1985 deVille's. 

Cadillac shared the front-wheel drive GM "C-body" with the Buick Electra and Oldsmobile 98

We, and by ""we" I'm referring to us car nerds, first heard about Cadillac's dramatically downsized deVille in the fall of 1983. The new "big" Caddies were to lose two feet of length, four-inches of width, shed six-hundred pounds, somehow be as roomy inside as ever and feature front-wheel drive. There was some minor consolation in that they'd be powered by a V-8 engine, albeit it was Cadillac's dubious, 4.1-liter V-8 making 125-horsepower and 190 foot-pounds. 

Hoping against hope, although considering Cadillac's recent transgressions like the bustle butt 1980 Seville, V8-6-4. the Cimarron and the "HT4100" (engine), it was like holding onto the side of a building with our pinkie finger, maybe Cadillac would pull something out of their hat or smaller trunk akin to a second coming of the 1976 Seville. Spoiler alert. They didn't. They came with these things. 

Somewhat remarkably, the Coupe deVille looked dorkier than the Sedan deVille. 

It wasn't for a lack of trying but somehow and someway, Cadillac got everything wrong with these cars. Anything that had made Cadillac what it was up until that point, without question much of it bullshit, went out the proverbial moonroof. 

Cadillac, like Buick and Oldsmobile, Lincoln too, was at a crossroads in the mid-'80's. Their cars were very dated and affluent buyers, young and old, looked to German makes and models for vehicles that would impress the Joneses. GM's answer, almost inexplicably, was "full-size" front-wheel drivers. "FWD" which had been the bastion of economy boxes prior. 

Even my father, born in 1923 and was no "car guy" like his middle son, said these were "no Cadillac". 

However, it wasn't that the cars were so much smaller or were front-wheel drive, although it didn't help, but the biggest problem it was their exterior aesthetic. Or lack thereof. 

At least the interiors looked "Cadillac". For the most part. 

Their interiors were actually very nice, lavish in fact with acres of leg, hip and head room. 

There may have been a familial if not vestigial resemblance to what they replaced, and that was important to their core buyers, but these were no "Cadillac's" in the traditional or even neo-traditional sense like the 1976 Seville was or even the 1979 Eldorado. 

The damn chrome trunk straps and fake spare tire "kits" often times were installed by dealers

Not only did they not appeal ultimately to their core buyers, but Yuppies also wouldn't be caught dead in them. The after-market "Continental kit" on this car does it not favors either other than to make it harder to park. These sold well at first, but sales declined through 1988. 

Better but still not a Cadillac in the traditional or even neo-traditional sense like the 1976 Cadillac Seville was. 

For 1989, Cadillac added a whopping 11 inches fore and aft to these things and pushed the wheelbase out three inches to appease traditional buyers. The reboot did nothing for monied younger buyers, though. The dye had been cast. Not that it wasn't before, but the 1980's defined "Cadillac" as an old person's brand. 

This 1986, all but identical to an '85, popped up on Facebook Marketplace and the seller, best I can tell, is having a devil of a time selling Grandpa's old sled. Price has been slashed more than $3,000 and yet it still sits out there for sale. 

Most likely because it's aged as poorly as those bell bottom, plaid Sears "Toughskins" my mother insisted I wear. 

 

1951 Willy's-Overland "Jeepster"- What In Tarnation is That?

Oh, dear. What in tarnation is this thing? From the deepest recess of Facebook Marketplace comes this very, very original, 1951 Willys-Overland "Jeepster". You don't see these every day, even at Jeep-centric shows, and you didn't see many when new either as only about 20,000 were sold from 1948 through 1950; 1951 models were actually left over 1950 models. 

The Willys-Overland Corporation built more than 300,000 government issue Jeeps during World War II but like many G.I,'s, struggled to adapt to civilian life after hostilities ended. They did have some success building utilitarian wagons, trucks and "CJ's" or "civilian jeeps", but they struggled to find buyers for their, umm, "car", they called "Jeepster". 

There were several problems with the Jeepster aside from its love it or run from it screaming design. First off, available only as a convertible, they were more expensive and not as well as equipped as convertibles from Ford and Chevrolet. 

Although they were built on Willys-Overland station wagon chassis, which was available with all-wheel-drive, Jeepsters only came with rear-wheel-drive. Jeepster's primitive and weak four- and six-cylinder engines didn't provide much in the way of performance either. Our Marketplace find here has the 134-CID , "Go Devil", 63-horsepower, inline-4. 

While technically the world's first crossover utility, since the virtues of everything put into it were compromised, there wasn't much the Jeepster could actually do. 

Then, again, there's the matter of the Jeepster's, "styling". 

Willys-Overland lacked the tooling to make proper car bodies so body panels of all their vehicles were made by metal fabricators. The simple, industrial, some would say ruggedly charming design of Jeeps may have worked well on more practical applications but when it came to automobiles, where design whimsy is so important, the grass roots-ness aesthetic didn't work. 

Willys-Overland, by the way, Willys is pronounced "Willis", was swallowed up by the Kaiser corporation in 1953; the company was renamed Kaiser-Jeep in 1963. Kasier, in turn, became part of American Motors in 1970, AMC was bought out in 1987 by Chrysler who tossed their cars and held onto the Jeep brand. 

From 1966-1973, Kaiser-Jeep and then AMC built a Jeepster-Commando (1971 above) that had many of the design elements (quirks) of the original. Big difference was those quirks were designed in rather than by necessity. To me, at least, it makes for a less authentic whatever it was the Jeepster was originally intended to be. Then again, I'm not a truck or Jeep gal so take my two-cent opinion for what it's worth. 

Poster of the ad is asking $1,500 which seems refreshingly fair. 

 

1972 Ford Galaxie 500 - Lost In Space

I happened on an estate sale and after passing on the avocado and brown kitchen appliances, stereo-phonic sound system that can play 78's and fifty-year-old Sears bought furniture in the living room, the kindly widow tells me about her late husband's dusty '69 SS350 Chevrolet Camaro that's buried out in the garage. She's willing to let it go for next to nothing to someone who would really appreciate it too. I fumble for my check book and then the cat jumps on the bed waking me up. Thanks, Ichabod. You just ruined a great dream. 

In reality, that only happens in staged YouTube videos where a couple of car chasers find not only a painfully cool car in a garage or barn. Chances are that "Barn Find" is going to be something like this melting, woe-be-gotten, 1972 Ford Galaxie 500 for sale in the Detroit, Michigan area. Well, at least it's a two-door hardtop. 

Cost of admission is $1,800 and I guess that's about right for what we call a "basket case" these days. Still seems like a ton. Without getting my hands on it this would appear to be $500 car, when I was a kid, this was a $50 car. Poster of the ad claims it runs and moves. I wonder if the air blows cold? 

I like to think there's room in my garage for any cool old bomb, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Despite being a two-door, and a big Ford this GM girl likes a lot, I simply could do not do this. Even at $500 you're setting yourself up for a literal boat or land yacht load of pain. Body work alone might run you ten-grand (to do it right), interior five, retrofitting the air conditioning a good four thousand (on the high end). Tires, rims, suspension, brakes, three thousand. For those keeping score at home we're at $22,000. 

1972 Galaxie 500's in decent shape are auctioning these days for around $10,500. 

Sure, you could rat-rod it on the cheap and "rattle can" the exterior, but the interior is so bad you'd never want to drive it. Uncomfortable, wobbly, fast old cars are overrated; the novelty gets old literally fast. You want cheap, fast thrills? Head to Coney Island and ride the Cyclone. 

More so than Chrysler or General Motors, with cars like the Galaxie, Mercury Comet and Meteor, Ford glommed onto "space names" as interest in the space race reached a fevered pitch in the late '50's through the '60's. Then, we land on the moon and just like that, check please. Even the near disaster that was Apollo 13 couldn't wrangle up enough long-term interest to keep the program going.  

I always thought "Galaxie" a cool name for a car; that they deliberately spelled it wrong masked that it was space age related. At least for me anyway. 

Ford first misspelled Galaxy in 1959 and through 1974, the nameplate festooned a number of different and massive automobiles. Attempting to figure out where in the Ford lineup the Galaxie was, was always tricky, especially after the introduction of the "XL" in 1962 and LTD in 1965 trim packages. For most of its time on earth, the Galaxie was, warning, incoming pun, "Lost in Space" in the Ford lineup. 

Again, GM die-hard I am, I've always thought these '72 big Ford two-door hardtops handsome, the '71's are all but the same. Somehow the "Bunkie Beak" front end works, amazing how Edsel like it is, the subtle coke bottle styling or fluting works well too. In my opinion, Ford's 1973 reboot to accommodate the five-mile-per-hour safety bumpers sent the design to cornfield. Ford let the Galaxie drift into oblivion after 1974 with all full-size Ford's becoming "LTD's" in various guises through 1982.

So, what happens to big old sleds like this? Some yokel will probably chew the seller down and haul it home only to quickly realize what they've gotten themselves into and it will either sit some more, get sold again or someone will have the good sense to call in a flatbed and send it to the shredder. 

 

1983 Buick Electra Park Avenue - Dad, How Could You Have Let This Happen?

I don't know what I used to see in these cars but back in the day I was all about them. These days something like this very nice 1983 Buick Electra Park Avenue pops up on Facebook Marketplace and I skip right past it. Then a little voice in my head says, "wake up, stupid, you just scrolled right past an old GM C-body!" 

Feeling obliged, I went back to it and found there are just 85,000-miles on its 42-year-old analog ticker, it's had two-owners, the current owner bought it from the son of the 90-year-old family patriarch at an estate sale and now they're "flipping it". They're asking $9,995 which seems somewhat reasonable, I guess. Sure is better than the hyper-inflated prices we saw on clean "fringe classics" right after The Pandemic. 

Going on forty-years ago, I would have been all over this thing. Now all I see is a floaty, wallowing, underpowered Reagan-era Buick with uncomfortable seats. Well, at least it's a coupe. What the hell is going on with me? 

With age (at least) comes some wisdom, and it seems I may have come to grips with what my younger self saw in what my wife refers to as "Old Man Cars". As I sprawl across a metaphorical couch of self-analysis, what I believe I used to see was my father or what I wanted him to be. That being a charismatic, benevolent alpha male I could respect, admire and attempt to emulate. I wanted to be the son of a confident man who would drive a (in its day) flashy car like this Buick.

Heavy stuff. Well, it's either all that or I just liked the looks of land yachts. Until I came of driving age and my superficial appreciation clashed with the reality of my seat of the pants experience with them. I remember test driving a 1983 Buick LeSabre (very similar car) in 1986 or 1987 and being frustratingly underwhelmed by it. Slow, heavy, ponderous and uncomfortable, at first, I thought it was just that car but every other one I drove were just like it. 

I was confused if not conflicted. How could this be? Dad, by virtue of you being my father I'm wired to love you intrinsically but how could you let me down like this? 

Similar to how long it's taken me to come to grips with who my father was, or wasn't, it's taken me time to accept that my beloved General Motors wasn't what I thought it was either. That and having owned a number of vehicles over the years that were excellent transportation conveyances, some that were not as well, has taught me how to know automotive shit from Shinola. 

By 1983, not only were Buick's glory days decades them, but General Motors' as well. Chalk that up to circumstance as well as poor product planning. Folks with money, not to mention the all-important "Young Urban Professionals" were opting for German makes and models and GM had nothing to offer them. No yuppie would be caught dead in a Buick unless it was a hearse. 

A BMW in 1983 foretold where the automobile was headed, this Buick Electra told us where it had been. Dad, how could you have let this happen? 

It's fun to spit-ball turning this into the "ultimate sleeper", that being a screaming muscle car that looks totally stock. With modifications to the power train and suspension, to do that right, you'd be talking the dark side, if not more, of what the asking price for this is. 

Let's be real. In the end, with it being ultimately what it is, there's only so much you can do. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it nor is dropping $10,000 on it in the first place. 

I guess I still see my father in cars like this. In the end, much like him, this car was what it was. Nothing more and, although it may sound sadder than it actually is, a whole lot less. 

 

1985 Ford EXP - Whiskey Glasses

Who knows what it was I saw in Suzie McGillicuddy (name changed to protect the guilty) all those years ago. Amazing what we see or don't see when we see through whiskey glasses. I guess the same can be said for what I once saw in Ford's EXP. This '85 popped up on Facebook Marketplace recently and suddenly a rush of bittersweet memories came rushing back. 

I really liked the looks of the EXP like I did old Suzie, I thought its lines alluring in ways its primary then-current corporate rival, the Mustang, were not. That it was a two-seater struck me as odd though; it looks like a 2+2 but it only seats two? And in many ways provides less performance than the car it's based on? They say love transcends but only to a point. Seems something got lost in translation.  

The "inspo" for the EXP was, allegedly, the 1981 Ford of Europe "Super Gnat". Drawn up by Ghia, the "Super Gnat" was a two-passenger, three-cylinder "commuter" or "city car" that didn't pull any punches - it was as utilitarian as a plunger. Albeit a plunger you might display in your foyer because this thing has some swagger. The Super Gnat never saw production in Europe. 

. 

The Ford EXP, later the "Escort EXP" was based on the 1981 Escort that was Ford's first domestically built front-wheel-drive subcompact. Supposedly, it was a "world car" since it was developed alongside a Ford of Europe Escort but it's as "Euro" as a Royale with Cheese. In a market desperate for an affordable practical, fuel-efficient car, the Escort quickly became the best-selling car in this country. 

Despite their virtues, because I thought they were homely, I wanted nothing to do with them; not that I could have afforded a new one. I stuck with my gas-guzzling 1975 Chrysler Cordoba, thank you. This young turk had Suzie McGillicuddy to impress. For the record, she wasn't. Just as well in the end. 

As is if tapping into my inner-psyche, Ford rolled out the better-looking-that-a-Mustang EXP for 1982 that disguised its humble underpinnings. The fly in the Jack Daniels' bottle was I couldn't get over the two-seater thing. Not that my Cordoba had a "usable" back seat, but it was doable in a pinch. 

Another sore spot with the EXP was its lack of beans. Somehow and someway, the "sporty", two-passenger body for the EXP made it some 200-pounds heavier than an Escort further boat anchoring the industrial grade, 1.6-liter, cam-in-head (a what?), 70- to 80-horsepower four-cylinder engine. There was no upgrading done to suspension tuning either. Upside, though, Motor Trend claimed they got 44-MPG in one they test drove. That's seriously impressive even today. 

Our Marketplace gem here is for sale in bucolic Lodi, Ohio about 40-minutes south of Cleveland. Asking price is $1,500 and for that you get a Reagan-era two-seater that's in pieces and has a seized engine. 

Bonus, since it spent most of its life in Arizona, there's no rust, but the interior is sun baked or bleached to oblivion.  Comes with another interior and whole bunch of other parts, a running engine is not part of the booty. Their loss, your gain! Message below if you're interested and I'll hook you up. I'm sure the seller is flexible on price. 

Some say "EXP" stood for "experimental" while others say some Ford marketing wonks just liked the way E-X-P looked together. A 1981 Popular Mechanics article cited that it was an acronym for, "Erika Project Personal": E-for-European Escort, X-for project. Spotters will note the rims are not EXP's but Ford Contour alloys.