This 1977 Ford LTD sat for sale for well over eighteen months at a used car lot not far from my home here in Cleveland. Sitting as long as it did, it became a landmark of sorts and the longer it remained unsold the more assured I was in my drive by assessment of it that no one would ever buy it.
Well, never say never. It disappeared shortly before the lot closed. I wonder if someone actually bought it or if it went to auction and was sold to another of these little lots that dot the landscape here in northeast Ohio and northwest Pennsylvania. They do say there's an ass for ever seat but Big Red here was a tough putt - like a super needy, sickly but sweet old dog in a need of a forever home, the odds were stacked against it despite it being in great shape and with a reasonable asking price of around four thousand dollars. There's an enthusiast market for two door sedans and station wagons but four door sedans? Nada.
Man, these cars were big and standing next to it the anxiety came back to me that I felt as a young, inexperienced driver behind the wheel of a big car. While the John Wayne in me would never let on how scared I was, trust me, I was freaked the hell out. Back in the 1970's, it wasn't as if people didn't know that cars were too big either. Going back to the '40's, American cars were derided for their sheer mass but Detroit kept making them incrementally bigger and bigger. Things really got out of hand, though, in the 1970's. Iron like Big Red were not only bigger than ever, on the cusp of the great downsizing epoch that was spear headed by GM starting in 1977. they were biggest they'd ever be. What is it they say about it being darkest before dawn?
It wasn't so much the length of these cars I found so intimidating - it was their width. At give or take eighty inches wide, that's nearly eight feet, having handling that could best be described as nautical and seats as spongy as a broken sofa with no side bolstering to speak of save for leaning against a door or the poor, hump sitting middle passenger, they felt wider than a school bus. Being maybe five foot ten at my tallest, in a big car like this without a power seat to push me up to where my scalp was skimming the headliner, I always felt like as though I was looking up and over the steering wheel as opposed to sitting squarely behind it and being able to see the mass expanse of hood in front of the firewall. How I never side swiped a parked car is beyond me. Maybe I did and I didn't realize it.
For decades, Detroit marketed "bigger was better" and many buyers, like my father for instance, thought big cars like this handled like dream boats. Compared to the crude contraptions they grew up with, these softly sprung cars with automatic transmissions, over boosted steering and air conditioning where modicums of modernity. And, bless my father's heart, I don't recall ever hearing him complain that whatever barge he had was "too big". Although, there were plenty of times he scraped the side of the of the garage or backed it into parked cars, trees or sign posts. He also had an embarrassing habit of rubbing the right front tire on the curb in front of our pre-war home on a oh-so-narrow south Nassau County, New York street to make sure he was parked properly.
Thing is, despite all that size, cars like this didn't have interiors that were much more spacious than smaller cars like a Granada. The size was all for show - the interiors were horribly inefficient. Sure, they were wider giving the hump sitting middle passenger more room side to side but aside from that, interior room on big cars back then was atrocious.
Let's not over the lovely color combination of our subject too. No doubt the litany of interior color options led to a customization that doesn't exist today off showroom floors but it also led to variances in assembly that compromised quality. I steel feel bad, though, for whomever had to sit on the damn hump in the back or the front. Kids today have no idea how good they've got it. By the way, how safe was it having a person sitting right up against the driver anyway?
American automobile manufacturers began to make larger cars with the advent of all steel bodies in the 1930's. However, it was after engineering innovation hit a plateau in the mid to late 1950's that things started to get really out of hand. What with most if not all of the accouterments once construed as luxury items having trickled down to even entry level makes and models and further innovation being cost prohibitive, Detroit resorted to gimmicky styling to appeal to buyers. For certain, while a 1960 Ford sedan may look nothing like Big Red here, there's really not much of a difference between the two of them "under the hood". That kind of long term engineering stagnation is seemingly unfathomable today.
As far as sheer bulk, for most of the 1960's, Ford's full size sedans were around two hundred and ten inches long and seventy six inches wide. Large, yes, but relatively maneuverable compared to the brutes that they came out with in the 1970's. That massive up sizing started with their 1969 models that while more than six inches longer than 1968 models, at least came with a bump in wheel base that had the benefit of giving rear passengers a scoshe more leg room. 1973 saw another up-sizing that, along with federally mandated "safety bumpers", helped to make Ford sedans like Big Red stretch the tape measure out to more than two hundred and twenty four inches long. That's comically huge.
Ford only made them this big between 1973 and 1978 and their timing couldn't have been worse. The OPEC embargo in October 1973 knocked the snot out of sales of big, thirsty cars and they never recovered. Couple that with the imports finally beginning to get a real toe hold at the time and its easy to see how and why road dinosaurs like Big Red became extinct.
So, what happened to Big Red? Hard to imagine someone bought this as a daily driver but you never know. Certainly would make for an interesting ride but it would be so expensive to gas up given this thing might get eleven or twelve miles per gallon. Hey, maybe some movie company scooped it up for use in a period piece they're making? That would be cool. Suffice to say, regardless of what happened to it, whatever we come up with is probably more interesting.
Years ago, General Motors had a curious habit of discontinuing production on cars just as they got them right - or as right as they could be. The 1969 Corvair and 1988 Pontiac Fiero come to mind as examples of cars they tweaked and prodded for years and then, just as they got them right, poof, they were gone. Another example is the 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS incarnation of the 1991 Chevrolet Caprice.
The 1994-1996 Impala SS was born of the ashes of GM's comical 1991 "Shamu" Caprice, one of the most bizarre, dare I say botched, redesigns in automobile history. The 1991 Caprice struggled to find buyers and while much of that struggle had to do with a market shift away from sedans towards SUV's, the car's over the top styling certainly didn't help. Still, the 1991 Caprice was nothing if not distinctive if somewhat handsome looking from certain angles; copious studio lighting helping our brochure car look almost glamorous. The most unusual styling detail being the quasi fender skirting on the rear quarter panels. Personally, I never warmed to it and often wondered, like many people I would have to imagine, would the car look more conventional, mainstream and less controversial without the skirts?
Oh...well...be careful what you wish for. Not unlike the 1974 Buick Riviera sans boat tail, for 1993 Chevrolet removed the '91 Carprice's most distinctive styling detail and turned what was a strange, albeit balanced design into one that was suddenly unbalanced and drab; in addition to still being strange looking. That awkwardness stemming from the fact that the rear wheels didn't quite line up perfectly in the wheel wells; they looked fine on the fender skirted models since the misalignment appeared to part of the design but the rear end on the car needed a complete overhaul from the rear doors back with the skirts gone to balance things out and...Chevrolet opted not to do that. Why? We can only guess it was because GM knew they were going to off the car in just a couple of years and went the less expensive and time consuming route of just removing the skirts to appease buyers who didn't appreciate them. While it ruined any semblance of design unity on the Caprice, there's no doubt it did wonders for the Impala SS that came in 1994.
Can't imagine what a fender skirted Impala SS would have looked like. Amazing what a little sprucing up can do for a car; the addition of sharp and beefy aluminum 18 inch rims, a lowered police car suspension, a blacked out grill and removal of most of the chrome from the Caprice and an otherwise forgettable automobile was suddenly Prom King. Actually, these cars were so big the entire prom could have fit in it. There was also the matter of a new-for-1994, 260 horsepower, 350 cubic inch LT-1 V-8 that helped turned the car into a performance watershed. Sometimes, lip stick on a pig works wonders. It's ironic that in 1994 a sub model of the Caprice, which was for all intents and purposes the top of the line Caprice, was called Impala. Caprice began as a top of the line trim level of Impala in 1965.
The 1994-1996 Impala SS washed away most of the sins of the 1993 Caprice and let's be honest, the 1991 Caprice as well. However, despite cheap gas in the 1990's, Impala SS was unable to stem the tide of buyers who would have bought it ten years prior from buying the scourge of the full size car in the 1990's, sport utility vehicles.
If you can't beat them, build them. After 1996, General Motors closed the Arlington, Texas factory that made these cars retooling it to build sport utility vehicles. Seeing how long it takes to rebuild a factory, it is interesting that General Motors spent any time on building a low volume, niche vehicle like the 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS. Personally, I've always been glad that they did since it's always been one of only a handful of sedans that I've ever liked enough to seriously consider buying.
I still have a hard time getting my head around the notion of a luxury truck; the concept being foreign to me as chocolate covered bacon. Each on their own perfectly wonderful but when they're blended together something gets lost in translation. I look at a luxury car as a tuxedo and trucks as work appliances and never shall the two meet. After all, would you wear a tuxedo to work at a construction site? Apparently, I'm alone in that sentiment given that the instant full size luxury SUV's were available people of considerable means gobbled them up.
Well, let's not get carried away here. While luxury SUV sales are literally and figuratively big business for Ford and General Motors accounting for massive profits since the moment Ford cold cocked General Motors with the Lincoln Navigator in 1998, they've never sold tremendously well; they're just tremendously profitable. Little more than a new for 1997 Ford Expedition with Lincoln styling details and plusher leather, the first generation Lincoln Navigator had such an impact that in 1998, for the first time ever, Lincoln surpassed Cadillac in total number of vehicles sold. Cadillac still beat Lincoln in automobile sales but with the influx of the unique, trailblazing and most importantly trendsetting Navigator, Cadillac could no longer claim to be the best selling luxury nameplate in the United States. Again, we're not talking about a huge number of vehicles sold compared to say, U.S. sales of the Toyota Camry year in and year out, but when it comes to bragging rights and one upmanship, Lincoln suddenly had the upper hand.
With that, Cadillac, remarkably and admirably, wasted absolutely no time when not a year later they slapped "Escalade" on a GMC Yukon Denali. Even more obvious that it was really something else than the Navigator was, Cadillac was successful in wrenching back the sales crown from Lincoln even if the notion of a Cadillac truck, at the time, was laughably absurd. I still feel that way but again, I'm fairly alone with that sentiment. The subjectively more premium looking Navigator, by the way. still outsold Escalade.
"Escalade" is a fitting name for Cadillac's full sized luxury SUV since "escalade" is a military tactic from medieval times where an army attempts to broach an opponent fortified by a stone wall; think castle and a moat. After their first fore ray over the Navigator's formidable game changing walls, though, Cadillac delayed introducing a more compelling vehicle until model year 2002 as they tweaked and refined what ultimately would be a fatal salvo at the Navigator. Waiting also allowed GM to amortize whatever tooling costs putting "ESCALADE" on a Yukon were despite the fact that in 2000, the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon rode on an updated chassis. Buyers could buy the next generation Escalade in 2000 by purchasing a loaded Denali, save thousands. and not even know they bought what was, in essence the next Escalade. But...it wasn't a Cadullac.
Timing being everything and patience being a virtue, it was clear by January 2001, when Cadillac introduced this new 'Slade, that the luxury SUV market segment had significant long term profitability. So, if the 1998 Lincoln Navigator introduced the world to the concept of a full size luxury SUV then our 2002 Cadillac Escalade here truly defined it. While far more of a stylistic departure from the GMC Yukon Denali it's based on than the 1999 Escalde was, the 2002 Escalade was still a most capable vehicle, especially when equipped with four wheel drive like most SUV's sold here in northern Ohio are. Not that many people would take advantage of it's prodigious towing or off road prowess capabilities. Not that buyers of "lesser" full size SUV's equipped with four wheel drive do much of that either.
Ironically, the only thing that puts any damper on Escalade sales is Cadillac's other SUV, actually it's what's called a crossover or "CUV", the SRX. Dubbed "XT5" for 2017, since it's wildly successful reintroduction in 2010, the SRX has become Cadillac's best selling vehicle far outselling the Escalade. Offering similarly decadent levels of luxury in a far more manageable size, along with the white glove service that Cadillac has always been famous for, the XT5 is poised to do what Lincoln could never do and that's push the Escalade back over the wall.
The SRX/XT5 being exactly what the Escalade is - a premium vehicle that people want in lieu of the fact, in many instances, that it's a Cadillac. Cadillac a brand that, unfortunately, continues to struggle even though what their cars are the equal or better of European brands. Who'd ever think that was possible. Their problems now have more to do with pricing than anything else since "Cadilllac" still doesn't have near the cache that "BMW", "Mercedes" or even "Audi" has. With Cadillac pricing on par with the German makes they're finding few buyers since those with the means to afford a prestige car are sticking with the imports. However, when it comes to prestige SUV's and CUV's Cadillac's got the market cornered. I still don't get it and me thinks I never well.
Rarely have I found a reboot of what I found to be a compelling design to be nearly as good as the original; whether that be a sedan, coupe, truck, Jeep or whatever. The 1966 Chevelle and 1969 Camaro being the rarest of examples of an update being an improvement. And then...they were gone. Anyway, I'm sure there are others but the point is there are very few updates that really make an improvement on the original. And while I respect the effort that went into updating the Lincoln MKZ for 2017, Lincoln missed the, ahem, "Mark" on it. That's a shame too since Lincoln did a really nice job with the ages old three box concept from 2013-2016.
So, what is an MKZ anyway? Well, it's still a gussied up Ford Fusion like it's always been since it debuted in 2006 replacing the "Zephyr" - which was also Fusion based. That's not a bad thing per se. The Fusion is a pretty happening appliance but it's a Ford. Lincoln's are supposed to have more going for them than clinical perfection; perfection is boring. If I wanted that, I'd just get a Fusion. No, I wouldn't since I wouldn 't be caught dead in a four door but you get my gist.
The model name "MKZ" is part of Lincoln's "MK" naming scheme they've had for over ten years now. "MK" being short for "Mark", like the Mark II-VIII's of yore. The Z in MK-Z stemming from the fact that this car started out as the Lincoln Zephyr. "Zephyr" harkening back to the days of Edsel Ford as if anyone cared. P.S. They didn't.
What really gets me is how much of a premium Ford is charging for this car over the price of a Fusion. Does it really cost Ford that much more to make this car than a Lincoln? Of course not. Now, don't get me wrong, this car is no doubt an absolute blast to drive and will coddle you in supreme comfort but that same driving experience can be had in a Fusion for thousands upon thousands less. You want an even better bargain than that? Get a low mileage 2013-2016 MKZ at more than half of the original sticker price. Good luck, Lincoln. With this thing and the new Continental, which incidentally is replacing the Taurus based MK-S, you're going to need it.
I expect nothing but trouble from our beautiful but oh-my-god so fragile 1977 Corvette but when our daily drivers starting acting up is when day to day life gets inconvenienced. It's been a tough month or so for "The Fleet".
The first problems crept up on the Monte Carlo before the boys left for school. What I thought was a transmission problem turned out to be a bad mass air flow sensor; when working on your car it is crucial to get a proper diagnosis of what's wrong otherwise you could spend hours upon hours chasing a problem that's not there. Happens all the time with the Corvette. As part of a $700 repair estimate from a hoity toity shop that also included a $225 transmission service and $150 diagnostic fee, they also wanted more than $300 to replace the MAFS. I had a small, local garage, that didn't serve espresso and toffee chip muffins, do the transmission service for $120 and although it took several three tries to get the right sensor to work, I was able to replace it ultimately and have the car run strong for $135. All in the net savings with going with a small, local garage for the transmission service and doing the MAFS myself was more than $300. I'm also not going back to that shop that charged me $150 for a diagnostic, that's just too much. Also, the shop owner got indignant when I declined further repairs citing, politely of course, he was charging too much. By the way, the transmission service was expensive but if you've ever serviced a transmission you know what a mess it can be. I figured that was money well spent not to have trans fluid all over my face not to mention my garage floor.
The Monte also has a bad driver's side wheel bearing; the wheel pulsates at speed and occasionally the idiots lights will bong at me telling me the ABS and traction control systems are on the blink again. The last time they did this the ABS harness on the passenger side was shot. That was a $400 repair I did for less that $40. The bearing replacement is a "I'll get to it before winter project" that will run me approximately $90. The Shop wants more than $400.
On to our 2006 Tahoe - recently my wife noticed an odd banging sound when she'd brake hard - turned out to be a bad driver's side tie rod. Again, eating $50 to get a diagnosis from a shop is money well spent for I had no idea what was wrong. I replaced it for less than $50, shop wanted more than $350. This was a scary project since it involved the steering rack but if you're careful, diligent and resourceful, especially if you don't have a lift, you can do this too. The best was that although every online expert recommended that I get an alignment as soon as possible after doing this job, it came back that the Tahoe's front end was within factory specifications for alignment. Take that computerized front end alignment equipment; I aligned our front end using a wooden ruler.
Next up on the broken down cavalcade of old car worries was this horrendous coolant leak from the Tahoe. We've had our Tahoe for over six years now and while it's been in general a marvelous appliance, when it acts up, it acts up big. And again, getting a proper diagnosis of what was wrong was crucial for I was almost certain that it was a head gasket issue. Or something equally not good since the coolant appeared to be leaking down the transmission dip stick shaft or worse, from the transmission itself.
However, I researched that head gasket issues are almost nonexistent on GM's most excellent LS series of engines. A $52 diagnostic charge at a chain garage revealed that it was a leaking heater core connector. That garage wanted a breath taking $260 to replace the connector. I think you know where this is going - I did the job last Sunday morning for a total of $21.
No sooner did I pat myself profusely on the back as I counted my substantial savings that I noticed a small puddle of gas underneath our 1996 Camaro, currently "off line" as the boys are at school. I've deduced that the connector for the fuel line to the fuel filter is leaking and I'm not looking forward to wrestling with what would appear to be the original filter and rusted fuel lines. GM's of this vintage notorious for bad brake and fuel lines. With old cars, it's always something.
Ah, the good old day when size really did matter and bigger really was better; or was at least construed as being so. However, at the risk of coming across ultimately hypocritical, Lincoln wisely marketed the size of their 1977 Continental directly at potential buyers who may have been put off by the new and substantially smaller 1977 Cadillacs. Marketers caring less about being contradictory, given how long it takes to design and engineer new automobiles, by the time this commercial was on the air Lincoln was far down the road on developing the smaller automobile that would replace it. Understand, though, that Lincoln, and Cadillac for that matter had little choice; there was no way that their two and half ton land yachts - no matter how much they improved their engines and transmissions - could come near ever stringent government mandated fuel economy requirements.
Based on the new for 1979 Ford "Panther" platform that it shared with the 1979 Ford LTD and Mercury Marquis, year to year Continental lost 14 inches bumper to bumper, more than an inch overall in width and almost one thousand pounds. What's more, the 1980 Lincoln Continental, our subject is a 1988 Town Car, was almost 40 % more fuel efficient than the car it replaced. Impressive. However, checking off all the boxes on what the government required didn't tell the entire story.
Unlike the downsized Cadillacs, the new for 1980 Lincoln looked more like someone who took their weight loss regimen too far. While Cadillac was able to retain the elegant design ethos of what made a Cadillac a Cadillac, the new smaller Lincoln looked like exactly what it was - a shrunken version of what came before it. The awkward proportion of the 1980 Lincolns further underscoring the good job GM did on just about all of their down sized, full sized 1977 cars. Now, I'll never say that any of the 1977 GM's were better looking than their 1976 forebears, I will begrudgingly admit, again, that they did do a "good" job on the downsizing, but I will whole heartedly argue that Lincoln missed the, ahem, Mark, with these cars. I never danced a jig about the blocky, boxy 1979 Ford LTD or Mercury Marquis either.
Can't blame Ford for sticking with what worked though; after all the 1970's were very good to Lincoln. Faux Rolls Royce grills and all. Throughout the 1980's, they also stuck with nameplates that had at least some cache in the marketplace. When this car was first introduced in 1980 it was a "Continental"; the trunk hump Continental was the two door Mark VI. "Town Car" was a level of trim. Starting in 1982, this car became known as a Lincoln "Town Car" when the Continental, complete with a trunk hump, moved to Ford's "Fox" body platform and in essence, mercifully, put an end to the Versailles. Incidentally, if you translate "Town Car" to French you come up with "Sedan DeVille". Try as they might, Cadillac has always been, literally and figuratively, in Lincoln's cross hairs. Oh, and don't feel bad if you can't keep the nameplate swapping straight. I think that only someone who lived through the nonsense would be able to make hell or high water of what went on with Lincoln in the 1980's.
Based on that TV commercial from 1977, it would appear that Lincoln went back on its word when they came out with a smaller car in 1980 but that didn't effect sales. What did effect sales was the fact that Lincoln failed to acknowledge or just flat out ignored the influx of compelling luxury makes and models from Europe that young, affluent buyers found appealing. If you go back and look at the actors that were cast in that ad for the 1977 Continental, you'll notice that they're all not thirty or even forty somethings. Classy and elegant looking? Yes. Young and vibrant? No. Lincoln knew exactly who was buying their cars and they first and foremost made attempts to hold onto them. What they didn't do was make automobiles that were appealing to buyers who found German makes and models alluring. You could argue that they attempted to with these downsized cars that were better performing than the leviathans they replaced, but the proof is in sales. Younger buyers stayed far away from these cars.
Let's not convince our selves that Cadillac did much better in the 1980's than Lincoln did. While their designs were subjectively more handsome, what with the myriad of power train issues they had it's a miracle that they survived the decade let alone still be around today. Cadillac and Lincoln slugged it out throughout the 1980's like two old prize fighters whom were way, way past their prime and continued fighting even though people were clearly losing interest in them. In fairness, Lincoln did make a somewhat honest attempt at a "Euro fighter" with the 1982 Fox body Continental but the die had been cast; Lincoln was for old people.
Again, Cadillac's aren't exactly for spring chickens either. Any success over the last near forty years that America's two luxury car manufacturers have had has been with either sport utility vehicles or the darling of the show room floor these days, cross over sport utility vehicles. And, sorry to admit it, those vehicles are popular not because they're Lincolns or Cadillacs but because of what they are.
Where would Lincoln be today had instead of introducing dowdy sedans like this thing they introduced a smart handling luxury car like a BMW 733? We'll never know of course but one thing we do know is that this car certainly did help matters. Did Lincoln's long slow demise start with the 1980 Continental? No, but if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Note the Cadillac CTS in the upper left of this photograph seemingly poised to go off in a direction that this Town Car could never attempt to go in.
As much of a fan as I am of these second generation Camaro's, I've never been a fan of ones powered by six cylinder engines. While modern six cylinder Camaro's are so powerful they almost make the V-8 that's available superfluous, that was far from the case years ago. These were heavy cars and with the most powerful six ever offered in one never making more than approximately 110, SAE gross horsepower, Camaro's with a six "back in the day" were bog slow. That most powerful six, incidentally, in a "second gen" Camaro was a new for 1980, 3.8 liter V-6 like our 1980 subject has.
Chevrolet's switch to V-6 engines as their base passenger car power plant was a fairly historic change; going back to 1929, an in line six was a staple of Chevrolet cars and trucks. In fact, from 1929 through 1954, Chevrolet only made in line six cylinder engines. It wasn't until 1955 that Chevrolet started making a V-8 but an inline six remained the "base" engine. That all began to change in 1978 when GM's new for 1978 intermediate "A bodies", which included the Chevrolet Malibu, had engine compartments that were not long enough to accommodate an in line six. Thus, Chevrolet had to change to a V-6.
Chevrolet actually made two V-6 engines based on their small block V-8. For 1978 and 1979 only, they made a 3.3 liter (200 cubic inch) V-6 and was the base engine in the Chevrolet Malibu; it was never available on the Camaro. Starting in 1980, Chevrolet started building a 3.8 liter (229 cubic inch) V-6 like our subject has; it replaced the Chevrolet in line six in their full size cars as well. A 4.4 liter (267 cubic inch) V-8, that was literally a 200 V-6 with two additional cylinders, was also available on Camaro in 1980 and 1981.
Somewhat more powerful than the inline six, the V-6 was lighter too. And since it was far more compact, there was much less weight directly on the front tires. That, no doubt, helped improve handling.
However, V-6 powered second gen Camaros were, again, far from "fast". Although the V-6 made about 20 more horsepower than the inline six it replaced and the same 190 pounds of torque, V-6 Camaros actually felt less powerful off the line than Camaro's with the in line six. That was because due to its smaller displacement, it had to rev higher to develop maximum torque. Chevrolet, to their credit, was candid in their advertising brochures regarding the lack of performance their new V-6 engine provided claiming it was designed for "today's kind of driving".
In 1985, the Chevrolet 3.8 liter V-6 was replaced by a 262 cubic inch (4.3 liter) version of the engine. While the 4.3 had applications in mid and full size rear wheel drive automobiles, the 4.3 gained its fame as the replacement for the Chevrolet in line six in Chevrolet and GMC light trucks. Remarkably, the 4.3 liter V-6 that was based on the original 229 cubic inch Chevrolet V-6, was produced through the 2014 model year.
And there's somethin bout you and me and the birds and the bees
And lord have mercy, it's a beautiful thing Ain't nothin bout it luck, there's somethin bout a truck
-Kip Moore, Somethin' Bout A Truck
Growing up twenty five minutes or so east of Times Square in the 1970's and '80s, no one I knew who wasn't a tradesman of some sort drove a "truck" like this 2009 Dodge Ram. Those few that did endured a fair amount of ridicule something to the affect of, "what are you, sum kinda hillbilly"? Might be old age settling in enabling me to be even more open minded or its my now more than ten years living in the Midwest, but I have fallen long and hard for simple work trucks like this. While I still have a hard time fathoming why anyone would drive a pickup as a daily driver who didn't need it's abundant utility, I love the balanced proportion of the design of these regular cab, short bed pickups.
Extended cab trucks with longer beds might offer more utility than our subject here can muster but then again, their proportion and balance of design goes out the tailgate. If I was to spring for a truck it would be something like this. Why buy a jack hammer when all I need is a hammer?
Of the Big Three's pickups, I find the Chevrolet Silverado to be the most handsome although the Ford F series has been outselling it for years. Dodge is a distant third despite this fetchng "big rig" front end that they've been producing in some form or another since 1994. Prior to this design, Dodge truck design was clearly influenced by whatever Chevrolet or Ford was doing. Toyota and Nissan have been offering very good full size pickups for years now too and as fine appliances as they are, they don't sell nearly as well as the trucks from the Big Three.
A ram charging hood ornament first appeared on a Dodge car in 1933, the first Dodge Ram pickup debuted in 1981. Prior to that, Dodge pickups had been designated "B" series from 1948 to 1953, "C" series from 1954 to 1960 and "D" series from 1961 to 1980. The lack of engine badging on our subject here tells me this thing may very well be a 3.7 liter, SOHC V-6 powered two wheel driver. A slow poke engine and two wheel drive? Yikes. Not exactly the type of thing you want to be driving come winter here in north east Ohio.
The rust spots, the finish coming off the wheels, the littered interior (which I did not photograph) and this very expensive to replace headlight lens tells me everything I need to know about this truck; it's a no frills work-a-day hauler that's ridden hard and put a way wet. Still, I want it. Crummy V-6 and all.
As much as I like these trucks, I can't imagine ever owning one and being able to "pull it off"; my younger son said that I'm not cool enough to drive a truck. Thanks, son. Nothing quite as humiliating as driving something that some people would scoff at you for driving but I really would enjoy it's utility as much as I'd enjoy it's near perfect balance and proportion. Would be weird from a guy from Long Island to suddenly drive a truck but whatever. Insert cheesy trumpet "wah-wah" when I say that there really is, "Somethin' 'Bout A Truck".
