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

2008 Craftsman LT 1500 - Marooned on Facebook Marketplace Island

I bought this 38-inch Craftsman lawn tractor, which I think is from model-year 2008, off Facebook Marketplace a couple of years ago for next to nothing. I bank rolled what I got for the even older Cub Cadet I had bought off Craigslist in 2017 into it too. So, I had a functional tractor with a bagger for a fraction for what these go for new these days. Go, me! Best is, it has given me little trouble in the three summers I've had it. That was until I rode it over the cast iron water meter in my front yard with the blades engaged several weeks ago. 

I've always been careful going over this thing but that day I guess I clonked it just right. Or wrong. Due to a high water table in our sub-division, our lawn has been slowly sinking, and our water meter now sticks up like a massive pimple. The day I rode over it, a "CLANK" rang out so loud every dog, cat and bearded dragon on our block ran for cover. 

I hit it so hard the engine stalled but bless its air-cooled heart, it started right back up. Problem was the stress of the blades hitting the water meter jammed the engine snapping the deck belt for the blades in two. 

How hard could it be to get a new belt? Well, Craftsman didn't make many tractors with 38-inch decks, and the parts and serial numbers were as hard to decipher as hieroglyphics. Folks at Home Depot, Lowes, Ace Hardware, Tractor Supply and Menards were little help. They meant well, but even the ones who knew what a "PTO" switch was were as clueless as I was. 

I bought a belt at Menards labeled for a 38-inch deck, but I struggled like hell to get it on. I ultimately was able to pry it on with a screwdriver, but it was so tight, the engine wouldn't crank. I popped it off and it turned over. Whew. I thought I somehow seized the sucker; stranger things have happened. Obviously, I needed a belt with a larger circumference. I know, I know. Measure the old one. Well, I would have, but idiot over here threw it out the day it broke.  

Half-a-dozen belts later, some too small, some too big, I found one at Lowes I felt fit snug enough yet had enough slack that the engine would crank with the blades not engaged. Wouldn't you know it, though? When I went to start the engine, the battery was dead; someone (me) had left the key in "lights on" mode and although the bulbs are burned out, there's still a draw on the battery. Strangely, it was so dead, my Harbor Freight juicer couldn't charge it. Odd. AutoZone tested it, it was fine, and they charged it for me. 

Got back home, plopped the fully charged battery in, hooked it up, jumped on my rig and all I got was a "thunk-thunk", and...oblivion. The. Ferk. A couple of YouTube videos helped me deduce it was either my starter was fried or the starter solenoid was toast. Again, the battery tested fine, and it was fully charged. 

I pulled the starter and had AutoZone test it and it worked fine. Must be the solenoid, right?  I picked up a new one at Home Depot for $15. 

Semi-decent YouTube videos I found made it seem as though replacing the solenoid, which is a switch that sends battery voltage to the starter after you turn the ignition key to on, is a snap. Naturally, that wasn't the case on my Craftsman as it's buried under the seat behind the battery tray, not conveniently next to the starter like it is on tractors in the YouTube videos. 

I won't bore you with the details but know just finding this little SOB let alone figure out how to get it out and back in was an f-bomb filled, wrench throwing, knuckle scraping afternoon. In fact, one of the toughest "DIY's" I've ever done; and I've rebuilt cars, repaired large and small appliances, remodeled bathrooms and kitchens and removed hornets' nests by hand. I like pina coladas, getting caught in the rain. gum and coffee too. 

I did get it in, eventually, and then, good grief, the old "thunk-thunk" was back. No go. Growing increasingly despondent, because at this point, what could possibly be the problem, I ordered a new starter off Amazon although the old one tested fine at AutoZone. 

Holy smokes, that didn't work either! "Thunk-thunk". I was at a standstill marooned on Facebook Marketplace Island. 

My salvation was a Reddit thread I found. There were multiple threads of people going through what I was going through where their tractors, regardless of brand, wouldn't start despite new starters and solenoids installed; some with new ignition switches. All of them said their issue was a bad battery. Couldn't be my problem, right? Mine was only two-years old and my friends at AutoZone said it was good. They couldn't be wrong, could they?

Curious, I bought a battery at Walmart for $32 and the wonderful kid behind the counter told me some smaller tractor batteries, some just a year old let alone two-years old like mine, are susceptible to cell damage from heat, cold and over-charging. Motorcycle batteries, which are even smaller, have the same problems. "Cells" go bad on them much quicker than cells on car batteries do. 

I dropped the new battery in, sprayed some starter fluid in the carburetor to make things move along as quickly as possible and...old blue fired up in the blink of an eye. Yes. Finally! 

Frankly, I don't know what the heck happened. Seemed the problem was a bad battery like that Reddit thread alluded to, but I have questions I'll never get answered. Was the battery failing or did AutoZone  damage it by over-charging it? In fairness, before all this, sometimes I'd get that "thunk-thunk" when I went to start it, but after a couple of thunks, the engine would crank. I don't get that now so maybe the solenoid was going and the stress of the too-tight belt from Menards pushed it over the edge? Then, what happened to the battery? Again, I'll never know. I packed the new starter up and returned it. 

Once I got my tractor back online, I blasted through the thick blanket of leaves on my property mulching them down into a neat pile on my tree lawn for the city to suck up. One thing, though, the new deck belt pops off when I disengage the blades; better that than binding the engine up. I don't know if there's a problem with the deck or the belt is too big. It's not the end of the world but I will try a smaller belt next weekend. Not one small enough to high jack the engine, of course. 

My wife marvels how I have to learn things the hard way all the time; our younger son is much the same way. What did I learn from this saga? First off, lots about how lawn tractors work but more importantly, I ain't never gonna mow over that damn water meter again. 

1984 Chevrolet Caprice Coupe - Winter Storage

 

Unless you get a sweetheart deal from a friend, relative or some kind heart who just needs a few extra sheckles, vehicle storage is expensive. And the owner of this 1984 Chevrolet Caprice Landau coupe is dipping their bumper into the market to see if they can heave-hoe it rather than sign a contract for winter accommodations. With an asking price of $14,500, they'd better get their trickle charger ready because this one's going to winter hibernation right where you see it at some shed in Elyria, Ohio. 

What price would this move at? Half that, maybe? Hard to say. Rare and unique as these are, they aren't sought by collectors. Looks like someone dumped a buck or two too many into it and is looking to recoup their losses. I love this thing but I ain't payin' no 15-g's for it. Especially as hacked up as it is. 

Poster of the ad claims the AC's been rebuilt and is "blowing snowballs", that wasn't cheap to do. Curiously, the dash has been "upgraded" to a Dakota Digital Dash setup, Summit has these for like $1,300 (good grief). 

It has a new "thick" radiator and the engine's had some work done to it although, most likely, this is not the original till it was born with. Details are scarce on it other than it has headers, an Edelbrock intake and a four-barrel carburetor. Transmission? No details on that either, most likely a 200R4. 

I'd guess this car came out of the factory with the "LG4", four-barrel, Chevrolet 305-cu. in. V-8. By '84, whomever did the modifications in the engine room would have had to deal with the finicky, "Computer Command Control". Mess with that or toss it altogether and you can get the car to run; you just won't have any gauges on the dash. Hence, I'd have to imagine, the pricey Dakota Digital Dash. 

This car is part of GM's 1977 downsizing of their full-size lineup. The big boys got a fairly substantial styling update for 1980, the Chevrolet Impala and Caprice coupes in particular as some clear-headed designer had the good sense to ditch the funky, "hot bent" backlight for a more conventional and formal look.

Chevrolet sold a Caprice coupe through 1987, these "box" or "square body" Chevrolet's made it through to 1990. 

1982 Cadillac Sedan deVille - Summer of '84

There's no better time machine than an old car. This 1982 Cadillac Sedan deVille popped up at the transmission shop next to my office this week and just like that, it was the Summer of 1984 all over again. 

That summer my parents were flush with cash from stock options they didn't know they had until they were notified they had to liquidate them or risk losing them.  Skinflints they usually were and my father facing retirement in less than five years, imagine my surprise when my mother, who didn't drive or work, told my father to use the money to buy another Cadillac. 

Her first Cadillac, bought in the summer of 1978, was a sinister dark blue on black, 1972 Sedan deVille, that was, and I kid you not, a three-miles-per-gallon, shuddering, underpowered, charmless, unreliable, constantly breaking-down shit show. Again, my mother didn't drive but she had "her Cadillac" and she was not happy my father replaced it in the winer of 1982 with a little, V-6 powered, Buick Century. Cash in hand, the time had come. Momma wanted Daddy to be driving another Caddy. 

She found a 1982 Sedan deVille for sale at the big Cadillac dealership in Freeport and with my father at work and my being on break from college, she commandeered me to take her to the dealership to kick its tires. 

At the dealership, she swooned over the gleaming maroon on maroon four-wheeled barge of pretension and insisted we go for a test drive. She sat in the back like a princess; I was her chauffeur. Our salesman rode shotgun. 

I thought the styling update for 1980 on the "class-of-1977" downsized Cadillac's handsome enough, but by 1984, Cadillac's "HT4100" V-8 engine had a dubious reputation for head gasket, camshaft, oil pump and distributor issues. On top of that, making just 125-bhp and 190 ft-lbs, tasked with moving a two-ton plus automobile, "HT" powered Cadillac's were notoriously slow. I couldn't wait to drive it. 

Out on traffic-clogged Merrick Road, the big Caddy lived up to its bad reputation. I hit the gas, and it felt as if the parking brake was on; it wasn't. Granted, slow and sluggish cars were nothing new back then, but that thing made my 1975 Chrysler Cordoba feel like a rocket sled. 

The steering was steering in the loosest sense of the word. You turned the oversized wheel, and the car went in that general direction. Eventually. The "play" in it was comical. Brakes were good if a bit touchy, the air conditioning blew frosty cold like mom liked it, the stereo with a cassette deck sounded pretty good for a factory unit. It didn't rattle as much as the 1972 Cadillac did as well. The velour-ish seats gave the car an extra level of cushiness. I looked in the rearview mirror at my mother who was sprawled out on the back seat, and smiling ear to ear. "Looks like we've found our car!", she said. I was mortified. 

Now, typically, my mother wasn't the kind of person who took kindly to things she didn't want to hear, but I felt it my duty to speak my mind otherwise I knew I couldn't live with myself. "Ma," I said, "this car is horrible."  Our salesman went bug-eyed, especially after my mother had all but bought the car. I couldn't blame him. I mean, what could some 20-year-old punk-ass kid know about a Cadillac? Well, don't judge an owner's manual by its cover, son. He had no idea what he was dealing with. 

Back at the dealership I stood my ground. My mother could tell I was not happy and to my surprise, she acquiesced. For a split-second I thought I could get her off the notion of buying a Cadillac but there was no dissuading her. It was then she spotted two black, 1979 Cadillac's in the back of the lot, a black on silver Coupe deVille, the other a black on red Sedan deVille. I told her I had heard good if not great things about pre-1980 Cadillac's and as we walked towards them, I said if it was up to me, I'd look at the Coupe. "Well,", she said, "it's not up to you. Let's look at the four-door." 

I test drove that '79 and thought it far from great but better than the '82; it at least at some modicum of "pickup". The color contrast of the black exterior on the retina searing red leather seemed opulent. Thing was, it was more than $1,500 more than the '82 and it had more mileage on it. I pressed our salesman on why that was and he shrugged his shoulders. "People like the older cars with the three-sixty-eight engine", he said. Not wanting to hurt his feelings, I corrected him saying as gently as I could, "the three-sixty-eight came out in 1980, this car has the four-twenty-five". He said nothing turning his attention to my mother. 

Mom left a deposit on that '79 telling our salesman my father would want to see it before we finalized the deal. I made one last ditch effort to talk her into a far less expensive Chevrolet Caprice, Olds 98 or Buick Electra but nothing doing. "They're not Cadillac's. Cadillac's are special", she insisted. And that was that. 

Cadillac's were in fact special when my parents, who were children of The Great Depression, were young. By the summer of 1984 though, that yacht had long sank. Sad thing was, for Cadillac, things would get even worse as the '80's dragged on and melted into the '90's and beyond. Incidentally, my father drove that '79 Cadillac into the ground selling it for scrap in the summer of 1991 for fifty-bucks. 

My mother passed away in 1993, her hearse was a converted Buick Electra Estate Wagon.