1968 Ford XL Convertible - It's Not My Problem

 

Lou Holtz, the famous football coach, is famous for saying, "90-percent of people don't care about your problems, 10-percent are glad you have them". With this 1968 Ford XL convertible that's full of problems, I'm just glad it's not my problem. 

My heart goes out to the seller because I know how hard it is to sell a basket case and how much it sucks to have sunk a ton of money into something and take a loss. That's the risk we take with "barn finds"; they're rarely the simply dusty relics you see on TV shows or on YouTube. They're more like this thing that gives a decent first impression but then you get to know it better. Asking price? $4,500. 

What you get for your money is a top-of-the-line 1968 Ford rag top whose rear quarters are rusting out, the floor pan the rear seat sits on is "soft", the front seat upholstery is torn up, the dash is cracked, and its 390-cu. in., 2-bbl V-8 only turns over if you squirt starter fluid into the carburetor the seller claims needs a rebuild. Could be a bad fuel pump. Could be both. Who knows. 

At least the convertible top works, where rust isn't poking through the paint is fair, and you'd get these genuine imitation knock-off fake wire wheel covers that, even if they were "real", shouldn't be on the car in the first place. That's a minor quibble compared to everything else that's wrong here. 

There's no mention of the condition of the frame, but the soggy rear seat pan tells me there's more to the rust story than they're disclosing. Get this thing up on a lift. 

I feel a kinship for full-size '68 Ford's since my dad had a '68 Ranch Wagon that was in this color. Being a Ranch Wagon meant it was a bone-stripper, rental car special which it actually was. He bought it from Hertz, "out at the airport". 

Dad's wagon had none of the niceties this has, so this is like peering into the life of some rich person and seeing how they once lived. Power brakes, carpeting, wood trim and it's a is a convertible? Holy indulgence, Batman. I see these cars as tarted up rentals first and have to make the long putt mentally to justify them as even semi-luxury cars.

What happens to lumps like this, y'know? I see the crusher in the near future for it. I hope I'm wrong. This wreck is like seeing a bad accident on the freeway. You're concerned in the moment then you pass by and it's out of your mind. It's not your problem. Nore is it mine. 

1968 Galaxie XL Convertible, 390 2 bbl. Would be a great driver with a little love. Has decent paint except for the swapped hood. Seats are split and dash cracked. Convertible top works great. Has the common quarter rust and soft rear seat floor but pretty solid car overall. Will need carb rebuilt and tank. Does run on starting fluid. Title in hand.

Lakewood, OH

Location is approximate

Seller information

Chris Orlando

(64)

Highly rated on Marketplace

Joined Facebook in 2008

1986 Buick Regal - The Most "1980's" Car of the 1980's

 

Looks like someone traded in Grand Pa's old, mint condition 1986 Buick Regal Limited and the dealership is trying to make a handsome profit on it. Quick check of NADA and J.D. Power and these things, in theory at least, can sell for as high as $15,000 in pristine condition. This just in,that's what this is pegged at right now. 

I don't care if you've got Bill Gates cabbage, fifteen-thousand-dollars is a lot of money, and I find it vexing anyone would spend it on such a yawner of a garden variety car. Just because a car is old, doesn't mean it's worth anything. At most, this is a $7,500 car I hope someone gets for closer to $5,000. Seeing this thing is stuck at a dealership, that's not likely to happen. No doubt this will get wholesaled and sold to car lot\financing front after car lot\financing front until someone bites on it. Someone will but, again, it's got to be at the right price. And 15G ain't the right price. 

This car is not without its merits as it's the last of its kind in many ways. It's a rear-wheel-drive, body on a framer that has a big engine room so it's appealing to hot-rodders. The idea of turning this into the sleeper of Grand Pa's dreams, make that nightmares, is alluring. Given the cost of admission to this retro '80's party, however, coupled with what it would cost to get you there, personally, I could never get the numbers to work. 

However, if you're looking for the most "1980's car" you can buy, forget DeLorean's, Mustang GT's, Trans Am's and GNX', this is your ride. Muted hues, soft interior. squishy suspension, flaccid engine, fake wire wheel covers. At least the original buyer had the good sense to skip the vinyl top option. 

Buick built these cars from 1978 through 1987 on General Motor's downsized for 1978 intermediate chassis and shares much mechanically and structurally with quite similar offerings from Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile from the same time period. Oldsmobile actually built a Cutlass on this platform halfway into the 1988 model year. Cadillac never got what are referred to in certain circles as a "G-body". 

As someone who came of age in the 1980's and had a front seat for all the shenanigans that went on from 1980 through 1989, trust me, it wasn't always the frothy, neon-glow joyride it's made out to be these days. You want to experience what the '80's were really like firsthand? Take a ride in a grocery getter like Grand Pa's old Buick here. It'll have you throwing your Wham! cassette out the window quicker than this thing can go from zero-to-sixty. 

1972 Dodge Challenger - What Killed the Muscle Car?

This 1972 Dodge Challenger coupe is yet another the current owner wants to unload rather than stuff away in winter storage. Asking price is $29,500. Whoa, nellie. That's a lot of (don't say it) green! 

If the muscle car party was waning by the time Dodge introduced the "Challenger" in 1970, it was all but over by 1972. On the Challenger, the HEMI was dead, the 383- and 440-cu. in. V-8's were gone too. The R/T was replaced with something lame called the "Rallye" that supposedly made them more "insurance friendly".  

That was funny considering for 1972, they could be ordered with a "340-Six Pack", Chrysler's 340-cu. in. V-8 topped with the three two-barrel Holley carburetors that supposedly cranked out 290-horsepower and 345-lb. ft. And those were net numbers too. Pundits believe those numbers were underrated as a '72 Challenger Rallye with a "340-6" was clocked zero-to-sixty in 5.8-seconds. For '73, the Six Pack was history, the 340 sent to the dumpster by 1974, the last year for these tender morsels. 

What killed the muscle car? It wasn't the gas crisis, safety or emissions regulations, kids. It was insurance company surcharges on anything remotely construed as a performance car. 

But this green machine is not a "Rallye" not to mention it doesn't have a "Six Pack". It has a 318-cu. in. "station wagon engine", at least it doesn't have a sixer. Not throwing shade at our beloved "Slant Six" either; these cars weigh some 3,500-pounds, there's only so much you can ask from six carbureted cylinders in the early '70's. That there's fresh paint on it in a car with just 85,000-miles on it is a little disconcerting. Oh, there's warning signs and red flags everywhere here. CarFax data only goes back to 1991.

I don't see any signs of a power steering pump so along with no A/C, so, hoo-boy, this one is going to be one hot and steamy handful in summer. If my wife was to approve the purchase order for this, it would be under protest. 

Geezle Peet, for thirty grand they couldn't have sprung to fix the driver's side bucket? 

The '80's vintage audio system looks as out of place as Culture Club opening up for Bob Seger too. I know thirty-grand doesn't buy what it used to but c'mon. 

Green is my least favorite color for cars, so, I don't know if there's a price that would make me fork over any of my green for it. 

Good news for buyers, seems the market for "classics" is flattening these days. That's also bad news for when they go to sell them. For the last forty-years, nostalgia has driven the market on cars like this, perhaps their timeless "cool" as well to some degree but the harsh reality is, they're not good cars. They handle like trucks, they're noisy, uncomfortable break easily and often too. You better be handy or know someone who is. 

Those under 50-years-old, especially those under 40 especially, have a limited or no sense of context for these cars. They get behind the wheel of one and they're most likely to say, "cool car but what the hell is wrong with this thing". 

1980 Pontiac Trans Am - All Show. No Go.

This amazing looking 1980 Pontiac Trans Am popped up on Marketplace for sale in the town just south of us here in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio area the other day. Asking price is $25,000. She's all show and no go - not that that's a bad thing. 

In the waning days of GM divisional autonomy, Pontiac found itself in a pinch with their top-of-the-line Firebird models as the 1970's melted into the 1980's. 

With ever stricter government mandated EPA and fuel economy standards tightening their figurative nooses, Pontiac had no choice but to discontinue use of the 6.6-liter V-8 engines, either the Pontiac 400 or Oldsmobile 403-cu. in. engines, that had made the Formula Firebird and Trans Am if not the fastest accelerating cars made in America in the late '70's, certainly one of them, 

Rather than use Chevrolet's 190-horsepower, "LM1", 5.7-liter V-8 from the Camaro Z28, for 1980 and 1981, Pontiac bolted an AiResearch turbocharger to their 4.9-liter V-8 and, voila. Turbo Trans Am. They made a Formula Turbo too. However, Pontiac deemed it too expensive to set up a turbo 4.9 to get through California's tougher emissions standards, so the 1980 and 1981 Trans Am was available with a "turbo delete" option. Our Facebook Marketplace gem here is one of those, ahem, rare birds. 

That's not the travesty it might appear to be at first although twenty-five-grand seems like a ton of money for a top-of-the-line Trans Am that doesn't have all the bells and whistles. Trust me, though, if you're going to buy a 1980 or 1981 Formula Firebird or Trans Am, one without the turbo is the one to get. In the end, it's ultimately a far more reliable and easier to live with automobile. 

The "turbo" 4.9 made 210-horsepower and 345-lb ft, numbers that, on paper, were comparable to the big 6.6 engines and bested the LM1 Chevrolet engine by twenty-horsepower and 65 pound-feed of torque. That non-turbo 4.9 there make 170-hp and 240-lb ft. 

Problem was in real-world driving. With the turbo 4.9, remember now, we're talking 1980 here, try as they did to minimize it, there was considerable "turbo lag", which is the delay between flooring the gas pedal and the turbo actually doing anything. And when the turbo "boost" was used up, drivers had to wait for it to literally spool up again. 

That on again, off again, "is it there?" throttle response got old fast; no pun intended. At the time, the cars were lamented for not being the smooth and instantly responsive beasts they most recently were. Now they're unicorns of a bygone era, unicorns with extremely hard to find parts if something go kerflooey. Oh, and they will. Suffice to say, you don't find many working, "original", 1980 or 1981, turbo 4.9-liter Trans Am's out there. Let alone one of these things. 

The normally aspirated, LM1 Chevrolet V-8 suffered none of the ills of the turbo Pontiac engine. Being a small block Chevrolet, they were bullet proof reliable. 

The Pontiac 4.9-liter V-8 came out in 1977, Pontiac's answer to Chevrolet's 5.0-liter V-8 they introduced in 1976. No powerhouse, it was a typical General Motors, no-frills, durable, powerplant Pontiac stuffed into anything they could fit it into. Oldsmobile and Buick used it as well. 

1977 to 1979 Trans Ams with the Pontiac 400 were timed going from zero-to-sixty in 6.7 seconds, Oldsmobile's powered T/A's were nearly two-seconds slower. At best, Turbo 4.9's got there in a tick over 8.2-seconds. I've yet to come across any published data on zero-to-sixty times for non-turbo, 1980 and 1981 4.9-liter Trans Am's, but I'd guesstimate 10-seconds. That's not that bad actually. These cars are heavy, credit the 3.42:1 gears out back maximizing the modest thrust of the non-turbo 4.9. 

With the non-turbo 4.9-liter Trans Am like this, buyers got the Turbo T/A's wonderful WS6 ride and handling packages along with the screaming chicken and to-die-for decals. 

As we say, it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car fast. No doubt this one's a blast and half to drive fast. $25,000 worth though? 

2017 Mercedes Benz G63 AMG - Gah-Lend-Dah-VAH-Gen

You may wonder what these oh-so-boxy SUV's with Mercedes-Benz logos on them are. They're called "G-Wagons". G-Wagon a colloquialism for "Galendewagen" which is German for "cross-country vehicle". I pronounce Galendewagen, ahem, "Gah-lend-dah-VAH-gen"; do the same and lean on the "vah" so people think you're as big a douchebag as the people who drive these monstrosities are. Sorry, that's harsh. I should say, like many of them are. I believe this one hails from model year 2017. It was sitting next to my oh-so-humble, 2009 Toyota RAV4 when I left my gym this morning. 

Bad enough this is a G-Wagen but, good grief, it's also a G63 AMG; AMG is the high-performance subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz. While owned by M-B, AMG hires independent engineers to customize M-B's turning what are already fearsome vehicles, into out-of-this-world fearsome vehicles. 

The numbers in Mercedes-Benz' alpha numeric naming scheme used to denote the size of the engine, legend has it M-B's with a "63" are paying homage to their legendary 6.2-liter V-8 from back in the day.  Wait, what? Makes no sense to me either. Our G-Vah-Gen here has a 5.5-liter engine. 

Mercedes-Benz has been selling "G-Wagens", which, at first, were military vehicles homogenized for civilian duty, since 1979 but only in the U.S. since 2002. Before then, at considerable expense, rich muckity-mucks could circumvent the system through the grey-market and have them imported and federalized through Mexico. Shit like that is what you do when you have more money than you know how to spend it. 

Changes over the years, externally and internally, have been incremental so a 2002 G-VAH-gen doesn't look that much different from this one. They've never been cheap, not that any Mercedes-Benz is, but this one would have stickered when new for around $150,000. Used, this could go for more than $100,000 but seeing this is parked outside my crapola gym west of Cleveland, Ohio, it's probably worth about $60,000.  New ones go for around $200,000 today. I know. Insanity. 

                                    

You could still pay $50,000 for a 2002 G-Wagen that's in near mint condition while you could get my dream car, a 2002 CL500 in really good shape for like five-grand. I don't have one because they're unreliable and stupid expensive to repair; G's are notoriously expensive to repair as well. Saving grace on the G's made before 2018, because they date in design back to the 1970's, they tend to be more reliable. However, this being a modern M-B and a "BITURBO", meaning not one but two turbos to "boost" it's horsepower to 563 and 561 lb-ft of torque, hopefully, the owner has some sort of warranty or has a close friend who can fix it with some degree of affordability. Brace for impact, when the engine detonates, and it will, friend or not, they're gonna get a repair bill that will kick them in the wiener schnitzel. 

At the risk of sounding jealous, I swear I'm not, but from the get-go, I have never seen what people see in these things; I think they're homely and they ride and handle like farm tractors. Steering wanders off center and needs constant attention, the ride is agricultural and will rattle fillings loose; try "Sport Mode" for tooth extractions. Upside, with as much power as these have, they're incredibly fast. Problem is that they're little more than fast gets old pretty quick. But you look rich so who cares, right? 

I "get" vehicles that have an industrial design ethos, like older Jeeps, Toyota Land Cruisers, Land Rovers, International Harvesters and whatever; there's a rugged, pretension free charm to them. They're cool. However, drive one and your opinion may change. They look the way they do because they're purpose built; they're function over form. Anything designed to look cool as opposed to being intrinsically cool is not cool. When M-B came out with a totally new G-Wagen in 2018 that quelled much of the John Deere-ness of these things, they became far less kuhl. 

What I don't "get" is the repurposing and marketing to the wealthy such things because, again, at the end of the day, they're not any better and oftentimes worse than something costing a fraction of what these go for. Imagine dropping more than high-five or six-figures on something and on the drive home that little "buyers-remorse" voice whispers in your ear, "oh, god...what have you done?" Been there done that on three-figure vehicles let alone five and six. 

People make incredible mistakes when it comes to their vehicle purchases and a-holes like me cheer them on too; I love to live vicariously through the financial mistakes of others. My go-to line when someone is struggling with the guilt of a purchase they regret is, "don't sweat it; you deserve it!" Well, what else would I say?

Giving the owner of this thing the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they love it for what it is like I love my 1991 Corvette convertible; I don't give a damn what anybody thinks about me or my car. More than likely, though, someone wants to make a statement and is showing off. Showing off something they probably shouldn't have bought in the first place. You poor thing, how much did it cost you to get it to pass the Ohio e-check?

If you must have one, try and spend as much time as possible with it, like an entire weekend, before you sign on the dotted line. The flinty-ness of them may suck you back down to earth in a hurry. Hope the accolades of strangers is worth it because if you grow to hate it, you're gonna be stuck with it. 

 Used 2018 Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG AMG G 63 For Sale (Sold) | Private Collection Motors Inc Stock #B6161