1979 Cadillac Coupe DeVille - Eye of the Hurricane

  

Things were looking up for America in the first couple of years of the Carter administration. Gas prices had stabilized, the economy was finally beginning to recover and adhering to the adage of what's good for General Motors is good for the nation, the first wave of GM's great downsizing was generally regarded as a success; critically and commercially. That first wave of downsizing included our black on red, 1979 Cadillac Coupe deVille. However, like the eye of a hurricane, the break in the bad weather for the country, the auto industry and Cadillac in particular would be short lived.

At first downsized for model year 1977, the new Cadillac's were more than a foot shooter and nearly a thousand pounds lighter than the elephantine 1971 vintage models they replaced. Despite being smaller, the "'77's" were marvels of packaging efficiency as they had more interior room than the "'71's" did. 

The new "small" Cadillacs also had a new "small" engine. Based on the Cadillac engine the previous models had, which was based on the legendary Cadillac V-8 that debuted in 1967, the new Cadillac engine still displaced a substantial 425 cubic inches. While certainly no economy car, the down sized Cadillac's got approximately 20 percent better mileage than the cars they replaced.

A more manageable package that got better fuel economy that still oozed "Cadillac"? No surprise that these cars sold as well as they did. Happy Days were here again. Albeit, for a brief time.

The 1979 Iranian revolution exposed the United States' reliance on foreign oil just like the 1973 Yom Kippur War did. Not only doubled the cost of a barrel of crude oil, which was already historically high post first  oil crisis, it pushed the cost of a gallon of gas past the mythological breaking point of more than $1 a gallon. The subsequent second dip recession the second oil crisis caused put the Carter administration in a tailspin which it never recovered from.

 

Suddenly it was 1974 all over again but for Cadillac, times were even worse. Sales of 1980 Cadillacs, which received a (opinion) handsome restyling, were down almost thirty percent - far more than the decline in sales during the first energy crisis of 1973-74. What's more, another reduction in bore and stroke to the famed Cadillac V-8, done so to improve tail pipe emissions and adhere to CAFE requirements, did nothing for performance. That new for 1980, 368 cubic inch V-8 was not in and of itself a "bad" engine but it was the basis for the infamously problematic model year 1981 only, "V-8-6-4". The V-8-6-4 the first in a series of almost comically bad roll outs at Cadillac in the 1980's that ruined the brand's once seemingly invulnerable image.

1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88 - Planned Obsolescence

 

"Car spotters" are able tell what model year a car is by knowing what minute and somewhat disparate styling detail distinguish one model year of an automobile from another. They have a lot easier time doing so on older domestic cars since back then, all manufacturers made significant enough changes to their cars each model year to make it fairly simple to distinguish, for instance, a 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88, which our brown on black subject is, from a 1968 Oldsmobile 88. These days, if not for a new generation or a mid-cycle "freshening", it's all but impossible to tell what a year a car is by simply looking at it.

Reason for the year to year changes back then being due to what was referred to as "planned obsolescence". Planned obsolescence, according to the economist.com, is a business strategy in which the obsolescence (the process of becoming obsolete—that is, unfashionable or no longer usable) of a product is planned and built into it from its conception. This is done so that in future the consumer feels a need to purchase new products and services that the manufacturer brings out as replacements for the old ones.

An example of planned obsolescence today is cell phones; don't be caught with an iPhone 6 these days - people will think you're poverty stricken. I just got a "6" and while the upgrade from my ding, pinged, dented, cracked and sluggish iPhone 4 is seismic, the only difference buyers got when they upgraded their 1968 "'88" to a 1969 were slight changes in sheet metal.

That year to year massaging of sheet metal rarely was to the benefit of a car's original design. This 1969 Delta 88 was part of General Motors 1968 update of their 1965 full size model lineup. While I think Oldsmobile did a great job updating the '65's in 1968, save for the gruesome "cow catcher' front end that all Oldsmobiles had from 1965-1970, "planned obsolescence" reared it's ugly head on the 1969 models. 

What had been a graceful, semi fastback profile in 1968 became as fussy, clumsy and cluttered as the front end of the car. Seeing that GM changed their cars so much year to year back then, it's fair to say that this design element was approved before any perceptual research was done to gauge the public's reaction to it.

Seeing that sales of the Oldsmobile 88 were slowly dissolving in the late '60's, you could point to styling gaffs like this 1969 "88" as the reason. Maybe we're not alone in thinking this car ugly as sin but that's more than likely not the case.  

It probably had more to due with the fact the Oldsmobile's loyal customer base was dying off and the customers they did have buying Oldsmobile's somewhat smaller and far more manageable to handle Cutlass.

Planned obsolescence, in addition to it making it easy for car spotters to tell what model year a car is also crushed resale values of automobiles. With a bevy of "one year only" models out there, it also makes for a scarcity of parts these days which, heaven forbid your old and unique classic car got into a fender bender, what would be a routine repair on a more mainstream "oldies" might mean a trip to the crusher.  



1983 Buick Electra - That DOES Look Like a Buick

Sales of Buicks have increased recently and some pundits site their "That's Not a Buick" ad campaigns for the uptick. Sorry, not only is this (old) Buick loving early fifty something not buying a new Buick, I'm not buying that that insular ad campaign has anything to do with increasing sales. What has increased sales? Let's start with a fairly robust economy giving people the confidence they need to spend the boatload it costs these days to purchase a new car, solid, contemporary automobiles and a significant decrease in choices domestically post GM bankruptcy.

So, back to granny; if the new Buick Regal doesn't "look like a Buick" then, what does look like a Buick?

 

How about a 1983 Buick Electra Limited coupe? Seems about right. If the Granny in those "That Doesn't Look Like a Buick" ads is approximately 80 years old, then thirty some odd years ago this car would have been the car of her and her husband's aspirational dreams. Way to go, Buick; making  fun of old people. Nice. And let me tell you something, sonny, there's a big difference between making fun and poking fun. I'm all about poking fun but when you start making fun of anyone and anything is when I get up from the Early Bird Special and walk out of the restaurant.  Check, please.
 

Seriously, though, Buick's wrestled with a "old person's car" image problem for decades now and those god forsaken "Granny ads" do nothing to help define them as a brand for hipsters. Or anyone under the age of 60.
 

So, what is Buick attempting to be? It would appear they're trying to be what Lexus is to Toyota, Chevrolet being Toyota in this instance. Now, while Lexus is an "old brand", young people aspire to it. Can't say that young people aspire to own a "Buick". They may like the new Regal or one of their inexplicably popular little cross overs, for instance, but they appreciate the vehicle as opposed to the brand. That's the big difference between Buick and Lexus and one that I question can ever be completely changed. The Lexus brand is so strong right now that they could market just about anything and it would sell.

Let's get back to our luscious Electra. Isn't it awesome? Wish it had more than that puny Olds 307 to motivate it but, I digress. Anyway, back in 1983, despite it's updated for 1980 aero styling and snazzy aluminum road wheels and white walls (oye), this Electra was an oldster's car back then as it is now. An old person's car from a brand that at the time also offered the Regal T-Type. While that T-Type had all of 180 horsepower from it's blower fed V-6, the image of the T-Type ran counter to what this car was all about. It seemed Buick was confused about what their image was back then and one thing's for sure; if they were confused, so were buyers. And you know that if Buick offered the turbo V-6 on the Electra, they'd do a silly paint and stripe job on it to make it look sporty. Please see Buick Rivera T-Type here. Imagine, turbochargers underhood for no other reason than to increase the car's performance and with minimal badging. What a concept.



Buick's on again, off again attempts to cultivate a hip, dashing, sporting, youthful image is nothing new. In 1975 and 1976, a Buick Century was the pace car at the Indianapolis 500. Several years prior to that, Buick offered the Skylark GS with tire shredding, 455 V-8's. Talk about duality - have you ever seen what pre downsizing Buick Electra's looked like? The only times, arguably, that Buick has been able to merge youth, sporting pretensions and affluence was with the original Buick Riviera. Then again, even with that car, it's price point was out of reach for many. If it's expensive, it's for older people with money. Hence, "Buick" is for old people.

Can you be all things to people young and old? Today's booming cute-ute craze not with standing, the answer is no, you can't. And the post GM bankruptcy Buick of today highlighting their past image of being an "old brand" by using Granny in their ads only reinforces their old image as opposed to "hippening" it up. Buick needs to be less concerned about what they or perceptual studies perceive their brand image to be and let their vehicles speak for themselves. They're actually excellent.
 

 

Can you tell that I loathe everything about these granny ads? Everything about them except the snappy dark red Regal GS this hipster doofus is using to take Granny back to the nursing home. It's not his fault, he's just an actor in some ill conceived commercial who's trying scrape together a living let alone make enough to make a (hefty) monthly payment on one of these things. As if this kid has the where-with-all to not only afford a new Regal GS but to live in this tony neighborhood and afford to keep Granny holed up in assisted living. Oh, this commercial is just all so wrong.

2002 Ford Taurus - The Power of Ambivalence

 



Amazing the power of ambivalence. If I was to make a list of all the automobiles that I've had and those include the ones that my wife and I have purchased or leased as "family cars", I almost have to be reminded that we had a 2002 Ford Taurus. Shame too. That was a very good car.  

 



But what makes for a great car? Performance and/or styling, right? If performance or styling was the case then my 2002 Camaro or 1977 Corvette would be considered great cars; and  so not the case. Styling and performance might get you to buy an automobile but in the real every day driver world, the most important attribute of an automobile is how reliable it is. Especially one that is to be used exclusively as a familial appliance. Yes, comparing sports cars to family cars is a bit of stretch but in the context of being driven daily, not really. So, if reliability is the most important aspect of what makes a car great, then that 2002 Ford Taurus we had should have been the greatest car my wife and I ever had since, save for the time the coil packs had to be replaced, it never gave us any trouble. Why is it then that we found it, ultimately, as interesting as a dutiful librarian?

 



Because the car was boring. So boring and dull, in fact, that's it's taken me nearly five years after I started this blog to write something solely dedicated to it. Shoot, I have to be reminded we even had it.

 





The Taurus was spacious, comfortable, fuel efficient, handled well enough and had more than adequate brakes. Our SEL model had every option available except for a rear spoiler that my wife nixed. I liked it, of course. I even found the lines of the car to be handsome. Enough. In short, the Taurus was everything any family could ask for. Problem was it was nothing more than that and  was a car with the soul of a rental car. Meh.

 



We bought the Taurus because our options were limited. Wanting to get off the leasing merry-go-round, when our 1999 Chevrolet Malibu came off lease, yes, we leased that car, it boiled down to a Chevrolet Impala LS and the Taurus SEL; Asian models of similar ilk were far more expensive and I abhor Chrysler products. While I liked the Impala better than the Taurus, the Impala was more expensive and couldn't be had with a  leather trimmed interior and a sunroof for the same money as the loaded Taurus. When purchasing a car you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere financially and we stuck to it; the Impala clearly crossed it. So much so that the Taurus in dreary black over black, made sense. Actually, when new the interior was quite alluring. It aged into a worn out taxi cab interior that only underscored our malaise with the car overall.



The Taurus was a tremendous upgrade over the Malibu it replaced and was, again,  a solid, oh-so-dependable ride. We bought it in New York and it came with us to Hartford, Dallas, Nashville and to Cleveland. It was here in Cleveland that the heat stopped working and I, honestly, looking for an excuse to get rid of it, rationalized that we would be better off with a mint condition 2002 Monte Carlo I had found since I was getting almost a brand new car for not much more money than it would have cost to make the Taurus whole again. Long putt to reason with as there was certainly many more miles left in the Taurus, we were only around 110,000 miles at the time, but that just goes to show you how ambivalence can help sway major life decisions.





My wife and I never experienced buyer's remorse or out and out regret over buying the Taurus over something else, I also to this day don't regret ditching it for something I found sexier. The amount of real life drama that my family and I experienced during the time we owned the Taurus put replacing it far back on any burner and it's with that that I'm grateful we had a car as trouble free as the Taurus was. Just wish it was a little more interesting. Perhaps if we had gotten it in red things would have been different. Red does make everything better, right?

1981 Chevrolet Citation X-11 V8 - Hats Off To The Driveway Mechanic

I've seen some very interesting (and expensive) swaps in my day like the Ford Taurus SHO V-6 in Jay Leno's Ford Festiva, this 427 cubic inch Chevette and even this Cadillac 500 V8 powered Fiero. Of all of them, this 1981 Chevrolet Citation X-11 powered by a Cadillac V8 might take the cake. Or at least the oil pan gasket. That's saying a lot; that Fiero is pretty freakin' awesome.

  

First, a warm round of applause to the builder of this car. He didn't just pick any car to swap a V8 into but one of GM's most vexed and despised automobiles. Furthermore, he did it all by himself and didn't have to physically modify the car (much) to get the engine to fit. That's someone who's not only a Chevrolet Citation fan, but someone who did their homework as not every V8 engine could fit in one of these.

The Chevrolet Citation debuted in 1979 as a 1980 model replacing the late, some would say great Chevrolet Nova. The Citation and similar cars sold by Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Buick were the latest in GM's massive downsizing program that began in 1977 and were, at least on paper, a major step forward in engineering being GM's first compact front wheel drive automobile. They sold very well too - at first. Timing being everything; the United States was going through a second energy crisis in less than a decade and the big on the inside, small on the outside, front wheel drive Citation seemed to be everything America needed at the time. All of these cars and particularly the Citations, which I always found to be absolutely hideous especially in slant back ala Buick Century and Olds Cutlass Salon of the same vintage, sold extremely well despite being horribly under engineered and built on the cheap. These cars quickly developed a very bad reputation and sales cratered.

The X-11 was a 1981 model year "upgrade" of the standard issue, "Iron Duke" powered two door Citation. Along with firmer struts, thicker sway bars, a quicker steering ratio and (somewhat) sporty interior was a two barrel carbureted, 2.8 liter V-6 making 135 horsepower. Compared to the 'Duke powered Citations, the 2500 pound, V-6 X-11 was a downright hoot. Ah, early '80's American cars. How they sucked.

Anyway, let's take a look at the actual Cadillac V8 that they stuffed in this car. Adorable, isn't it? That's not, of course, a massive 500 cubic inch Cadillac engine like the one in that Fiero but the "best" version of one of the worst gasoline V8 engines in GM's history. Damning by faint praise? No. Not exactly as this actually was a very good engine but what it stemmed from was a different story.

It's fitting that this reject of a car is fitted with a "survivor" of an engine. The 4.9 liter Cadillac V8 in this Citation X-11 was the last upgrade of the crap-tacular 4.1 liter Cadillac V8 that debuted in 1982 as part of the "HT4100 Power System". Various upgrades and engineering revisions to the engine through out the '80's resulted ultimately in a fine running, performing and reliable "little" engine. Amazing how General Motors saw to it to invest the time and resources into the engine to make it what it eventually became. Imagine what things would have been like for Cadillac in the '80's had they started with the 4.9 engine in the first place.

Engine swappers like these Cadillac engines because they're tiny compared to even the most popular of engine swap choices, the Chevrolet small block. The reason these engines are so small, in physical dimension - displacing 300 cubic inches they were anything but small, is because Cadillac designed the engines first and foremost to power the front wheel drive deVille that debuted in 1985. Those cars had engines mounted transversely so installation of it in any front wheel drive car with a modicum of a large engine bay is somewhat straight forward. Somewhat. I can only imagine what the poor guy who shoe horned this in there went through.

The owner of this car claims to have spent over $7,000 on parts to get the engine to fit not to mention hours upon hours getting the whole thing to work properly.  He's selling the contraption for a price reduced $2,000. That's a lot for an old Citation but a pittance of what he spent to make it. His loss, your gain! Those buckets are standard issue X-11, by the way. I know, you'd think they came out of Cadillac too.

I'm the last person to scoff at what someone else spends their free time on, I'm spending a Sunday morning blogging about this car for crying out loud, but with furrowed brow I have decided to help this person sell this thing. Priced more than right it will find a new home very quickly and no doubt to someone who has no idea what in hell they've just gotten their hands on.

Here's the listing with even more pictures and even a video showing off that the thing runs. And runs well. Keep in mind you're buying someone's project car. Find a mechanic who can work on almost anything if you can't work on cars yourself. Good luck.

Triumph TR6 - Devil May Care

Along with worn out 1960's Chevrolets, Buicks, Fords and Plymouths that adorned the lower middle class block I grew up on was, of all things, a Triumph TR6 of the same vintage as this stunning red head. Based on the massive battering rams fore and aft, this is a 1974-1976 TR6. I found it in the parking lot of the cheap ass dump of gym I frequent on Cleveland's west side. The owner obviously spending their money on things like this rolling money pit rather than on a membership at a more chic health club.

Triumph was a British manufacturer of automobiles and motorcycles. After World War II, the oft financially maligned company began producing a series of fascinatingly designed sports cars they dubbed, "TR". The TR6 we have here was part of the most successful run, at least in terms of number sold, of the "TR's" most of which where exported to the United States. Today, these little cars are quite valuable and this plum cherry would no doubt command an asking price of nearly $30,000 if it were for sale. It's not for sale far as I can tell.

Most Triumph TR cognoscenti are drawn towards the subjectively more handsome 1967-1968 TR6's with their rounded, "bug eye" headlights inboard of the fenders that protrude visually from the hood. Those TR's, incidentally, all but identical to the TR5 save for a six cylinder engine. Since my childhood bike rides almost always included my skimming by the house that had a TR6 of this vintage in front of it, I'm drawn to them exclusively. The days that the car was parked out front with the top and windows down were particularly delightful. Even with the top and windows up these cars cut a handsome profile. Many came with a removal hard top.

Most people find two passenger sports cars like this alluring and compelling but it's the rare breed that actually owns one. They're certainly not ideal daily drivers although the person who drove the Triumph in my neighborhood used theirs as their primary ride. Then again, growing up in extremely over developed south Nassau County, you needn't travel far for employment or essentials. Even in the 1970's, if you didn't commute to the city, most people had a short jaunt to work so time spent in painful restraint in one of these was blissfully truncated. Same for getting sundries and what not. Back then, sports cars like this rewarded drivers with a uniquely brisk driving experience that they couldn't get from ordinary automobiles like they can today. A sporting driving experience from an automobile that also made a powerful fashion statement. I've never been into fashion or what's popular; I just like the car.

Owning one of these beauties takes an extra special person if for no other reason they're notoriously unreliable. Parts and service are astonishingly expensive so I hope they have a full set of metric tools to go along with their driving gloves and scarf. This car and its owner screams, "The Devil May Care!"  what people think and they really mean it. That is until the brakes fail and they crash into the rear of a big Dodge demolishing the thing and nearly killing themselves. Demolishing the car, nearly killing themselves and leaving nary a scratch on the Dodge. Still, I wish I had a smidgen of the savoir faire owners of these cars have.

 

I don't care to meet the person who owns this car just like I never met the person who owned that TR6 in my neighborhood when I was a kid. There's no way the swash buckling debutante of a person that I envision them to be and wish I could be could live up to that auspice. How could they with my knowing that they lived in my god forsaken neighborhood growing up and attend the shit hole gym I go to now. Perhaps, they could...but...it's doubtful. As are many of the best things in life, who they are and who I want them to be are best left to my imagination.

 

2016 Chevrolet Malibu - Do You Like Pina Coladas?

 

Much like a song that I didn't care for when it was new and to this day still dislike, it's the rare automobile that I take to over time that I did not appreciate when I first saw it. An example of this is when I first saw the new for 2014 Chevrolet Impala; I was luke warm to it then and I don't like it now. And I don't care how swell an automobile it is either. So, it's really disappointing that my beloved Chevrolet has cast on us another oddly styled rolling toaster, the new for 2016 Malibu. To make matters worse, my wife really likes this car and most if not all reviewers of this car love it too. Go figure.

 



 

It's a shame too how unsightly I find this thing considering how terrific an automobile it is. Longer, lower and lighter than the outgoing Malibu - although less powerful -  the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu represents the very best that General Motors can do to target an automobile at the "middle to low end" of the market and not have it roll out of showrooms and be an up to date version of the Chevrolet Citation. Ha. Lower end of the market; loaded this thing stickers for $37,000. Holy smokes. Then again, I haven't bought a new car since 2002 and I thought the $21,000 I dropped then on a new Ford Taurus to be nothing short of highway robbery.

  

One of the biggest problems I have with this car is that it looks a lot like the Impala. Not being a fan of the Impala, it's not surprising I don't  like this car. It's also so similarly sized to the Impala as to make me wonder why they have this car to apparently bridge the gap between the Cruze and the Impala. By the way, surprise! I loathe the Cruze as well. The Impala goes bigger for 2017. Stay tuned.

  

The 2016 Malibu rides on General Motor's new E2 platform that replaces the short wheel base version of the Epsilon II chassis the previous Malibu rode on. The E2 enables designers and engineers to develop a cabin that has 1.3 inches more rear seat room, important for families, and the car overall is three hundred pounds lighter. Remarkable.

 

This car's base engine is this 1.5 liter, turbocharged in line four that you'll also find under the hood of the new Cruze. With 160 horsepower and 184 foot pounds, down 36 and 2 from the outgoing model, GM estimates 27 miles per gallon city and 37 highway, increases of 2 and 1 miles per gallon. Sounds good on paper but I'd be hard pressed to believe that you won't be working the daylights out of this little turbo engine to get it to do anything. I'm not a big fan of turbocharged engines, by the way. There's also dual-motor electric-power-steering setup that no doubt increases steering feel and is not a parasitic draw on engine power like hydraulic pumps are. Trick aluminum suspension components add to the dramatic weight reduction. The 2016 Malibu handles like a slot car despite the turbos and unsightly sheet metal and interior design.

  

The engine to get is the revised 2.0 liter, turbocharged in line four.  Down 9 horsepower and 37 pound feet (whoa...that's a ton) to 250 and 258 respectively, allegedly the drop in engine power is mitigated by not only the reduction in curb weight but by GM's new 8 speed automatic. Hmm, kay. This is still a turbocharged automobile with all the herky-jerky, shook up bottle of soda performance that I find so irritating. Note, picture is of a 2.0 turbo engine from a 2013 Malibu.

 

What I wouldn't give to get a direct injected 3.6 liter V-6 in this thing. Who am I kidding? I hate this car...what do I care?

The interior, which is lauded for its design and up to date features looks, to me, cluttered, dense and complex. Somehow they've crammed pedestrian detection with automatic braking, lane-keeping assist, lane-departure warning, blind-spot monitoring, forward-collision warning with automatic braking, rear cross-traffic alert, front and rear parking sensors, automatic parking, automatic high beams, and adaptive cruise control into that dashboard binnacle. C'mon, really? I don't want to have to read a manual or watch a twenty minute DVD over and over on how to operate this thing. More stuff to break too. Is it me or do I sound like a curmudgeon? Time for my nap.
 

 

Blue Tooth and lots of airbags - that's all you need. The new Malibu has ten airbags but there's nothing less sexy than buying a car simply because of safety features.

 

Again, my problem with this car is the styling inside and out not so much the technology it's packed with. I can live with the frickin' turbo and without a V-6. Some of the technology, like this screen that can keep tabs on your kid's driving habits, is really quite intriguing but I don't believe you should be able to access this information why you are driving. I've also gone thirty five years of driving without all this stuff so I doubt I would find it useful in the long haul.

 

I know I'm fairly alone in the sentiment that this car is homely and I run the risk of coming across like the old fogey who doesn't like change. That's not the case. I embrace change that makes sense and while this car does have a lot of good going for it, the styling, to me at least, leaves a lot to be desired. Just like Rupert Holmes' "Do You Like Pina Coladas?", it's not going to grow on me.