A Tale of Two 1996 Chevy Camaros - Stuff Doesn't Matter

Over the last six years my wife and I had bought two, almost identical, red, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro's for our sons to use and last week a gentleman named Jim took the remaining one off our hands. There were a number of "little" and not so little problems with it and it's relative unreliability had worn out my ability to see past all of its intrinsic faults and foibles. Still, seeing it go was bittersweet as it closed the car door on a big part of my life as a father. After all, isn't buying cool first cars for our kids what "car guys" like me are supposed to do? Seeing a nice wad of bills in an envelope, though, helped dissuade any feeling of melancholy I had quite quickly.

That it was an "Arizona" car with absolutely no rust was the driving force behind Jim wanting it to replace the '99 Camaro he had with "only" 198,000 miles on its clock but whose frame had rusted out beyond repair. That and that our car had a mere 81,000 or so miles on it helped seal the deal. I tip my ball cap to Jim since he, like myself, can see past the flinty, truck like ride and handling, god awful seats and cheap, junky interiors of these cars and loves them for what they are and not despise them for what they're not. Trust me, one doesn't replace one of these cars with another one if you don't love them.

Learning to let go both physically and emotionally of stuff in general but particularly of our sons is one of the toughest things that I've had to experience as a parent. I've learned that our children grow up, our roles in their lives change and we stand a better chance of holding onto the wind if we think holding onto their baby shoes, cribs, toys, their first cars or whatever, is going to help us hold onto them as they were. It's a good thing my wife is way, way less sentimental than I am otherwise we'd be over our heads with their "stuff". And, really, what's the point of that? I've also learned that the idea of their "stuff" is far better than their actual stuff. Takes us much less room in the garage, attic and basement too.

With that, I said goodbye to our "second" 1996 Chevrolet Camaro. While it took me a couple of days to get over it, silly as it may sound to those who are less sentimental than I am, once I did, I felt empowered by freeing myself of the physical constraints of the past, fear of change and of the future. I also felt renewed and hopeful as selling that car will help to open a new chapter for our son as he's planning to use what we got for it as part of a down payment on, bless his heart, a late model Camaro.

Honestly, I could care less what he gets as long as he's happy. However, here I go again, I know I'll have an instant and deep emotional bond with it because it be forever the "first car he bought for himself". 

Is Buying A Car with A "Rebuilt" or "Salvage" Title A Good Idea?

To buy a car with a "rebuilt title" or not to buy a car with a "rebuilt title"...that is the question and the answer is not a simple yes or no. Purchasing a rebuild can be vexing because there are several things to keep in mind - like why the car was salvaged or rebuilt and whether or not a buyer knows all of the pitfalls that come with buying one. It can be a great buy but they can also be a nightmare; especially at trade in or resale time. For today's blog about salvage title vehicles, we'll use this 2014 Chevrolet Camaro our older son was seriously considering buying as an example.

So, what the heck is a car with a "rebuilt title" and what constitutes a "total loss" anyway? Also known as a "salvage title", "rebuilts" are cars repaired after being damaged such that an insurance company deemed them a total loss. Now, a car that's been "totaled" doesn't mean that it can't be repaired and resold although, on the surface, it sounds really fishy. Buyers are (somewhat) protected since if a car is totaled and fixed, it's title is branded as a "rebuilt".

Regarding a "total loss", that varies somewhat from state to state but here in Ohio, insurance companies use a total loss formula or what is referred to as "TLF". With "TLF", if the sum of the cost of the repairs of a damaged vehicle plus it's salvage value exceeds its actual cash value (ACV) or "book value", the vehicle is deemed a total loss. Other states use a percentage of the damaged vehicle's value relative to the cost to repair it to determine if it's a total loss or not. For this '14 Camaro with just 12,000 miles on the clock to have been deemed a total loss here in Ohio, it must have been seriously messed up. Thing is, it wasn't. More on that in a second or two.

Not all cars with "rebuilt" titles are created equal. Some cars that are rebuilt shouldn't have been because they were too badly damaged and their future crash worthiness could be compromised. While the body shop selling this car was quite forthcoming with information about the damage this car previously had, I had a hard time getting my head around buying a car that had been banged up so badly that it had been "totaled"; despite an asking price a good twenty five percent below market value. Also, this car allegedly had front end damage so bad that it warranted the car being totaled while at the same time the air bags didn't go off? Heh? Weird. Anyway, as you can kind of tell, the car looked perfect but I uncharacteristically hemmed and hawed and dragged my feet on helping my son make what would ultimately be his decision. Oh, and another thing that sorta haunted me about this car is that salvage title vehicles car will always be significantly worth less than a comparable car with a "clean" title.

While our son said he would keep the car for "ten years or more" to wring as much value out of it as possible, another concern I had was if he had to get rid of it while still owing on it, ditching a rear wheel drive sports car here in north east Ohio is tough enough let alone anything with a "rebuilt" title. However, taking everything into consideration, seeing how solid the car was, how much  information we had on it, and my willing to take it off his hands should he want to part ways with it, I was ok with whatever decision he made. With that, he made up his mind to purchase it.

Well, snooze you lose. No sooner had he made up his mind to make the purchase when someone else thought it a good buy too and beat us to the punch.

1991 Nissan Figaro - Now It's Just Old

I'd seen this car several times before in the parking garage of the gym I go to but always crunched for time, I never took photos of it until the other day. The last time I saw it I saw a woman in her mid thirties driving it out of the garage and I was taken back by someone so young driving such a quirky, old and exotic car. It reminded me of the gypsy hearts I saw as a kid who drove small, European cars as opposed to the enormous American iron of the day. I mean, wow, what other than a devil make care vagabond forgoes modern reliability, comfort and performance for something as frivolous as a prop from an Audrey Hepburn film? Well, imagine my crushing disappointment when I found out this car was not manufactured by Fiat, Citroen or Alfa Romeo but by...Nissan. Yup. This ain't some dainty 1950's European runabout but a 1991 Nissan Figaro. A what?

Not that Nissan builds a bad car by any means but when I found out this was a Nissan every romantic notion I had went out its proverbial convertible canvas top. That's not to say, though, that this little car is not without merit and viewed in the context of 2019 and not 1991, it's not as pretentious as it once was. Especially now that it's as old or almost as old as the cars it once attempted to harken. I'll park my confused sentiments about it and attempt to get at more concrete and emotion free observations about it.

I should have known this was something other than what I thought it was when I saw what appeared to be a modern radio perfectly integrated into the dash board. You see old cars with after market radios blighting otherwise old and artistic dashes all the time but this was different - it looked like it came from the factory because it did! The seats appeared strangely modern too but I thought, holding onto the last shreds of romanticism that I could, that someone might have done an interior swap sometime in the last fifty or sixty years. Everything else about it seemed like it came out of post war Europe. Sorry, I didn't take a picture of the interior because while people don't like their cars photographed in the first place, running the risk of getting caught snapping the interior was not the way I wanted to start the day.

So, what was a Nissan Figaro? Debuting in 1989, under the theme "Back to the Future", the Figaro joined the Austin Mini-like Nissa Pao, the pun-intended S-Cargo van, and the period-styled micro Nissan Be-1 in what was the first wave of retro styled automobiles. Yeah, this was before the "New Beetle", the '94 Ford Mustang and a whole bunch of other throw back cars. Exclusive to the Japanese market, buyers loved them so much that not only did Nissan quickly sell out of every batch they pushed out, they had to resort to a lottery system to help deal with demand and to avoid dealer mark ups. Originally slated for just 8,000 or so units, Nissan eventually increased production to a grand total of just 20,073. And then, oddly enough, that was it. The Nissan Figaro was a one year only "phenomenon". Just as well.

Built on top of a mundane but well engineered, and also exclusive to Japan, first generation Nissan Micra, some "Figs" made their way to the U.K. while a smattering made their way here. Makes sense since the U.K. got some seeing that it's right hand drive country like Japan is but these unicorns that made it all the way to the U.S. are really special. Not to mention one that made its way all the way to a parking garage in friggin' Cleveland, Ohio. I don't want to know the real story - there's no way it's half as good as something I could conjure.

While I love me some resto-mods, I've never been much of a retro styling kind of girl so the throw back appeal of the Figaro is lost on me. I'd much rather buy an old car and modernize rather than buy something new that allegedly looks old. So, with this thing now as old as it is, what are we to make of it? Good question. I guess it's not unlike people we all know who were old when they were young.  Now that they are old, they're just old.

1979 Cadillac Coupe deVille D'Elegance - I Wish You Well, My Love



Although I'm a fan of 1977-1984 Cadillac Coupe deVille's and this big old beast flirts with me daily...I wish it wouldn't. It's not that I don't have the room for it although with seven cars in my name at the present I certainly don't...but there's always room for one more, right? Well, thing is, even at a bargain basement asking price of just $4,000 and only 78,000 on the clock, I want no part of this thing because it's a "D'Elegance".

Offered on Deville and Fleetwood models beginning in 1977, I've never been able to determine where in the Cadillac pecking these D'Elegance models sat. Where they top of the line or some odd off shoot of a base model with a plusher interior? Without window stickers or access to RPO codes, I can only speculate that Cadillac had these cars sitting at the top of their lineup. Speaking of sitting, sitting on these seats felt like sitting on a lumpy couch with something stuck under the cushions you can't get rid of. And just like sitting on an old couch, no two seating positions ever felt the same.



So, what did you get for ponying up for a D'Elegance? Aside from a throw pillow interior, you got nothing more than you 'd get on a base Cadillac with a cloth interior. While the interior of the D'Elegance was arguably more attractive than the base model's plebeian cloth, at least when new, I've never seen a D'Elegance of this vintage whose seating wasn't sun bleached and didn't smell like an old man who rolled around in a cat litter box. And then, again, there's the issue of how back breaking uncomfortable they are.



On this particular car that's a shame since otherwise, save for the rear filler panels rotting out and a rust bubble ouchie right there, it appears to be in great shape. All it needs to come alive at stop lights is a manifold and carb swap along with a set of 3.08:1 gears to wake up the ole 425 engine. Stiffen up the shocks and springs (without lowering the whole thing) and replace the horrible wheel covers with fancy Cadillac fake wire wheel covers, somehow those are cool, and this car would be a real winner. All that for about the same cost as to replace that awful interior with professionally installed, period correct leather trimmed thrones.



However, the interior swap with the powertrain and suspension mods along with the purchase price of the vehicle makes the value proposition of this grand old dame a hard if not impossible pill to swallow. And that's too bad. She deserves better than to sit in a used car lot on the cusp of what "The Farmer's Almanac" predicts will be a brutal North East Ohio winter. I wish you well, my love. Please find shelter. Soon.

1980 Chevrolet Corvette - Perfectly Fine By Me

I turned 16 in March of 1980 and there was no telling me anything about anything. Especially stuff about my beloved Corvette being a creaky, sloppily built ox cart of a "sports car" that couldn't hold a tailpipe to the Porsche 928 and other real sports cars from over seas. Nope. Didn't want to hear it and even if I did hear it, I wasn't believing it because when you're 16 and you know-it-all,  nothing beats a Corvette. Besides, how was I to know at that time that something that looked like this couldn't cash checks their looks would have a dumb ass 16 year old me believe they could?

While the automotive press wailed incessantly about the Corvette not getting any updating since 1968, well, updating that they deemed worthy of praise, I, for one, stood up and cheered like the sophomore I was about the revisions Chevrolet bestowed on the magnificent plastic flanks for 1980. Revisions I thought brought together fairly big changes they made back in 1978. You know, the move to that fastback "hatch" thing that did away with the luscious "sugar scoop" or tunnel ram that defined the rear of the car from 1968-1977. Honestly, as much of a fan of the "C3" as I am, I pump the brakes big time when it comes to the 1978 and 1979 models.

If Chevrolet "Jumped the Shark" with Corvette in 1978 and 1979, they erased those episodes with the glorious 1980 model. Thanks to subtle and not so subtle changes, what had turned into an awkward, "what the hell? for 1978, in the blink of an eye became a complete, resolute and thoroughly satisfying update. So strong, at least through my eyes, was the 1980 freshening that I believe the changes made for 1980 were originally part of the changes made to the car for 1978. GM being GM, they held off on all the good stuff to save money and to give them time to complete a long over due "all new" Corvette. Time "bought" with the updating for 1980.

In addition to a handsome duck tail spoiler on the rear end for 1980, a design element so cool that many an owner of earlier "C3's" has added to their cars, and a hunky front chin air dam, GM made other updates to Corvette for 1980 that weren't as readily apparent. Thanks to lighter, thinner glass, lighter doors, a different manufacturing process for the fiberglass body and aluminum rear suspension components, engineers were able to shave more than two hundred fifty pounds of curb weight off the body on rigid iron frame old lady. With 1968-1979 C3's weighing more than thirty five hundred pounds, dropping more than two hundred fifty of them was worth honking your horn over. Sadly, it being the height of the so called "Malaise Era", with engines still clogged by primitive emissions gear, the weight savings didn't add up to improved performance or gas mileage. Hey, our subject here could been worse. Had this been a California car, it would have come with a 305 engine since GM wasn't able to certify the bigger huffin' 350 for the Golden State's strict emissions standards.

That all said, was I disappointed that Corvette remained unchanged for all those years at the time? To some degree I believe so but that was only in blind anticipation of a new Corvette that would somehow and impossibly so, usurp the C3 in design, scope and reach. No Corvette since has come close to the C3 and seeing that Corvette is now a mid-engine, Ferrari/Lamborghini what the effing eff, Corvette never will be. And that's perfectly fine with me.

2002 Honda CRV - One Night Stand



My wife and I thought our search for a vehicle for our younger son had ended when we bought this cute-as-a-button, 2002 Honda CR-V. Adorable, isn't it? And I was so proud of myself for buying something staid, responsible and, I guess I'm finally growing up, practical. Looks can be so deceiving.

I blame my myopia for this near unmitigated disaster when it comes to Japanese anything. Especially Honda's. Despite this CR-V having some 124,000 miles on the clock and priced a couple of grand less than comparable CR-V's of its vintage with similar mileage, myopic me ignored its rusty underbelly and dove in head first. I plopped down checks totally more than five grand and drove off with a seventeen year old cute-ute that came with a warranty. How could I go wrong? Best was our twenty year old son, who could care less about what he drove, was ecstatic. Win-win.

I didn't notice a thing wrong on several test drives one of which included a fairly long traipse at speed on I-480 south of Cleveland. Solid as a rock with an interior that looked like it was freeze dried and teleported from the late '90's, our "practicality first" little cross over seemed like a dream come true. Oh, and she came with a thrusty and thrifty, 2.4 liter four cylinder engine that pulled like a freight train. I liked this thing so much that I thought about using it myself and giving our son my Monte Carlo.

After I bought it and with the ink on the temp tags still dewy I dropped it off at our local service center and for a mere fifty-three dollars, had them check the thing out bumper to bumper. Armed with warranty, anything really, really wrong would be covered under warranty. They did the same thing on our Mustang after we bought it and it got straight A's. For the most part; we are talking about pretty old used vehicles. Seeing what a savvy used car buyer I think I am, I fully expected close to the same grades on this Honda. After all, it's a freakin' Honda, right?

Imagine my horror when the report came back that our little Honda needed repairs totaling almost what we paid for it. Bad brakes, calipers, brake lines, CV joints and boots (on both sides), leaky coolant lines, leaking AC condenser. tires that were misshapen and dry rotting. Worn out struts.  Gosh, what else was there? My mechanic said it looked as though it had been submerged in ocean water or a long time. He was amazed at that too considering how pristine the body and interior were. Underneath, though, you could tell that something was seriously off about this thing. I saw that too before I bought it but a little voice inside my head said it was nothing to worry about since it was a Honda. Yeah. And the Titanic was unsinkable.

I could certainly do the work myself but Honda parts are expensive and with my starting a new job with a monster commute, my time was going to be limited. Worst was, nothing that needed to be done was covered under the warranty that came with the full asking price I paid for. I felt foolish and that I had been had. Good grief. What was I to do?

Enraged and panic stricken, not a good combination for rational conversation with a used car lot, I vehemently demanded I get a refund. And to my surprise, I did. Armed with erroneous information from my wife that buyers have "three days" to change their minds when it comes to vehicle purchases, I contacted the dealership and told them about the issues with what they had just sold me, with receipts and a video of the inspection that clearly showed the under carriage of the CR-V to look as though it had spent a hundred year plus at the bottom of the Atlantic.

Again, to my amazement, the dealership caved and took it back returning the checks that hadn't cashed yet. Wow. They did, to their credit or discredit or whatever, did ask me if there was anything else on the lot I'd be interested in. Thanks but no thanks. I was happy as a sophomore to have the damn thing out of my driveway and out of my life.

Funny thing is, there is no rule about buyers having three days to change their mind when it comes to buying a used vehicle. At least in the state of Ohio. While a return policy on purchases is a staple of outlets like CARMAX, in most cases, any such thing is clearly up to the dealership. If anything, what tilted things in our favor was that we had a reputable, name brand repair shop do the inspection and turned over receipts and the video to the dealership. That was overwhelming. Also, time was of the essence. I believe if we waited even a week out chances of getting a refund would have been greatly diminished.

All in, my wife and I owned this Honda CR-V for a total of, give or take a half hour here or there, thirty six hours. Seeing that we have a tendency to keep vehicles for two to three if not four times longer than most people do, our owning this bowling ball on wheels amounted to a one night stand.

1984 Dodge Conquest - We Are What We Drive

My blog about the Nissan Pulsar's my wife's family had jogged my memory about the Dodge Conquest my father in law owned when I first started dating my wife in the summer of '88. Much to my chagrin he traded it in not long after we met for a Pulsar but not before it left an indelible impression on me as a reflection of the man. After all, we are what we drive. Or what we want people to think we are. This black and gold '84 Conquest is for illustrative purposes. His car was an even more "oh-so-eighties" gold on gold.

At the time, although I had known of these cars but didn't really understand what they were, I was pretty impressed with someone his age, he was fifty-eight at the time, owning a car that wasn't a frumpy old four door "dad car" like my father drove. Funny, my father was only seven years older than my wife's father but he might as well have been from another century seeing how old fashioned he was in comparison. And I'm being kind.

A "captive import" like the Mitsubishi Lambda/Dodge Challenger was, these cars were also sold in the U.S. (and Japan for that matter) as the Mitsubishi Starion. Confusing? Just a little. That meant you could buy a Starion and a Conquest in this country and, save for some minor cosmetic differences between the two, buy the same car at roughly the same sticker price. The only difference in the end was that Mitsubishi was able to side step tariffs on Conquest sales because the car was technically a Chrysler.

What's more, Plymouth and Chrysler (the division) both sold these as "Conquest" at one time or another between 1984 and 1989 too. I know, I know. Then again, we are talking about Chrysler. I guess their car naming department had the day off when some suit upstairs made the decision to sell these in other Chrysler showrooms.

Technically a Chrysler but mechanically identical to the Starion (above), although they kind of look like front wheel drivers, they were rear wheel drive and used Mitsubishi's 2.6 liter, balance shafted, they called it "Silent Shaft", in line four. Thanks to a small turbocharger and electronically controlled throttle body fuel injection, the big little engine made 145 horsepower; as much if not more than most domestic V-8's at the time. In a world of phlegmy carburetors, these sorts of cars were innovative,  heady stuff. Appearance wise the biggest difference between the cars was the Conquest didn't get the Starion's over center hood scoop.

Not that any of the technical wizardry of his car mattered to my father in law. He was all about the seat of the pants experience and the statement these kinds of cars made. A "god damn it, pay attention to me" kind of guy, I had no idea at the time how the overtly styled 2+2 fit the man to a tee. Far better, honestly, than the Pulsar did. I loved the guy and my wife says he loved me but much like his Conquest was, he wasn't for everyone. 

Seeing how meticulously engineered and assembled Japanese cars usually are, it was somewhat ironic that not only did the power windows not go up or down on his Conquest, the air conditioning didn't work either. So, any time I spent in his car that Summer of '88 was akin to a steam bath. Shame too considering what a fun to drive, nimble performer it was. His Conquest had a barrage of other electrical gremlins that I blamed on Chrysler, my wife blamed on his cigar smoking. The poor thing was probably just a lemon. It happens even with Japanese cars.

With the car out of warranty, he deemed it best to just get rid of it for something else. That replacement, again, sadly, was that Pulsar that wasn't a bad car, per se, it just didn't fit him like the Conquest did. 

1988 Nissan Pulsar NX - Overnight Stay

Next door to where I now work is a towing company that the city contracts to tow and store cars driven by, allegedly, DWI offenders and various other offenses. I've been at this job four months now and I'm amazed at not only the steady flow of cars and trucks that come and go but the variety of different makes and models in all sorts of condition from showroom new to rolling death trap. I've stayed away from the impromptu sin bin until last week when this 1988 Nissan Pulsar NX made an overnight pit stop. I just had to have a closer look.

I have fond memories of these cars because when I first met my wife her older sister had a red, five-speed Pulsar just like this. Their father had a top of the line "NX-SE Twin Cam" version in silver. The extra go of the 1.8 liter twin cam engine was all but negated by it having an automatic. The down market 5 speed my wife's sister had was way more fun to drive.

Her sister bought hers because fresh out of college and flush with cash from a job as a merchandiser for a cigarette company, my future mother in law insisted she do something with her paycheck rather than blowing it on clothes and traveling and who knows what else she was burning her paycheck on. Cheaper than buying a small house or condo, I guess and it helped build a credit rating for her too. "Dad" bought his because...well, I'm really not sure. He was purportedly a sports car lovin' kinda guy and he traded in his trouble prone Chrysler Conquest for it. Despite its sharing much with the Sentra, it was as difficult to get in and out of as the Conquest was without even the remotest pretense of  high performance like his Conquest had.

Seeing that twenty somethings today are so into do-it-all cross overs, it's almost hard for me to remember how and why these oh-so-impractical 2+2's appealed to young people and the young at heart (like my father in law) back then. However, I have to remind myself just how different things were in the '80's. Especially on Long Island where nobody, well, next to nobody, used a truck of any sorts as daily transportation let alone an SUV. Speaking of which, when I think about it, had the term "sport utility vehicle" even been coined yet? And the closest thing to a cross over back then was AMC's Eagle and no one under the age of forty would have been caught dead in that thing. As far as driving something more practical, like, say a four door sedan, that was verboten lest we be construed as being a parent before our time.

That's not to say, though, that if today's slick cross overs and SUV's were available back then they wouldn't be a hit either. Cross overs not only do it all these days, they look great doing it too. (There. I said it). And they scratch the same itch in young people today that sporty coupes scratched years ago. That means, sadly, sporty little cars like this are dead, buried and won't be making a comeback any time soon. Nary a manufacturer has any plans to bring anything like it to market in the next five years. More cross overs and even wagons? Oh, you bet. But sporty little throw a ways like this? Nope.

Thanks for the traipse down memory lane, little red Pulsar NX. Hopefully you stopped by because of something less nefarious than a DWI. I'll tell my wife and her sister you stopped by. Their dad passed back in 2007. 

2020 Chevrolet Corvette - Do I Have to Call it a Corvette?

I've struggled with this blog for weeks now because I'm conflicted by this car. On one hand, I applaud the engineering marvel that it is but because it's now "mid-engined", I have difficulty calling it a "Corvette". Perhaps that's just abhorrent to change me but it begs the question, what is a Corvette? To me, inasmuch as I define a Porsche as a two passenger, rear drive, rear engine sports car, Corvettes are front engine, two passenger, rear drive sports cars. Or, sadly, what they used to be. Then again, to the majority of buyers, they're going to care less where the engine is in the car. Especially younger buyers who don't have the decades of experience with Corvettes that someone of my age does. 

To me, what they're calling the "C8" (eighth generation) Corvette is not unlike Porsche purists blowing a head gasket over the late, great, front engine 928. Sure, it was built by Porsche, but to the Porsche Nation the 928 was heresy and stoked fears the days of air cooled, six cylinder, rear engine Porsche glory were over when they introduced it back in 1977. I was too young at the time to fully understand how heretical the 928 was but I get that now seeing what GM has done to the Corvette. 

What's the big deal? Well, we first have to understand what a seismic difference this car is compared to the previous seven generations. With the engine now mounted directly behind the driver, "a midship", with the greatest mass of the vehicle in the middle of the car its handling capabilities are maximized. At least on paper; no documented track testing of the car has been published yet. And having gunned a mid engine Ferrari around a racetrack, I can tell you that driving a powerful mid-engined car is a surreal experience. With catapult like acceleration and running on what feels like the world's most loving and nurturing train rails, the only thing that stops you from driving to the moon is your better judgment.

So, why after all these years did GM finally do what St. Zora (Duntov) advocated over fifty years ago? Who the hell knows for sure but from what I can surmise, engineers at GM claimed that they couldn't make a rear drive car any better than the previous generation. To improve upon Corvette, they needed to blow the whole thing up. And look at all the publicity the C8 has garnered. Incredible. I haven't seen this much Corvette chatter since the introduction of the 1984 model (C4). Had this been just another "new Corvette" it probably would have gone by the wayside like the introductions of the sixth and seventh generations of Corvette did. Seriously, those cars when new went by in a literal and figurative blurr with nary a person noticing. Why? Because they looked liked C5 styling updates rather than being truly different looking. Ok. Maybe the C7 was a bit of a styling game changer but I thought it was as ugly as I think this one might be. 

I wish GM had followed through with plans they had rumored to have had years ago where they were going to spin off Corvette as a separate make from Chevrolet and sell it through Chevrolet or even Cadillac dealerships. That way they could introduce a mid-engined model like this and still have a god's green earth, front engine model as the flag ship. Or still hold onto one like Porsche did when they kept the the old school, rear engine 911's around after they put the 928 at the top of their totem pole.

I want to like this car but part of me thinks it's butt ugly. And I'm hearing and much of the same sentiment too from car scribes. I'll know for sure the instant I see one in person but because of some wonky and dare I say overly derivative styling details, at least in pictures, my jury is out. In fairness, all mid-engined cars have a familial resemblance but the C8's rear end and sail panels are too fat and overall it looks too much like a C7; again, a car which I was not a fan of. I prefer the curvaceous lines of the C6. Then again, I think C3's are the best looking C's of them all so what do I know.

That said, I'd love to get a C8 out on the track and have my way with it. But, do I have to call it a "Corvette"?  

2001 Oldsmobile Aurora - I Like The Aurora...But Not This One

Originally, Oldsmobile intended this car to be something called "Antares" and was to be slotted below a new more upmarket Aurora. However, with Oldsmobile bleeding cash, GM pulled the plug on a new Aurora and made the Antares the "second generation" Aurora come 2001. Six inches shorter and some four hundred pounds lighter than the 1995-1999 "first generation" Aurora, seldom has less actually been more but such was the case with the Aurora/Antares. Especially with the NorthStar V-8 derived 3.5 liter V-6 that helped make it a better balanced, more sprite automobile than the first Aurora.

I came across this 2001 Aurora at a used car lot near our home in Cleveland, Ohio a couple of months back when I was shopping for a car for our younger son. I didn't pay much attention to it despite just 72,000 miles on the clock, it being in really nice shape and with a reasonable asking price of just $3,495. Why'd I ignore this vestige of old school GM?

First off, the lot gave me the creeps. The sales people were nice and not pushy but the lot wasn't paved, the sales office was in a dirty trailer and their inventory was mostly over priced, cigarette stinky, rusty junk. Save of course for this Aurora but I've never liked the half baked yet at the same time over done styling of them. Even shopping for a cheapie beater, if I don't like the looks of it, I ain't buyin' it. I've heard the Northstar V-8 derived 3.5 liter V-6 engine, despite being smooth and rev happy had many of the same cooling and head gasket issues the V-8 did too. 

Those good enough reasons to forgo it for, of all things, a 2003 Chevrolet Malibu with more than 25,000 more miles on it for similar money instead? Yeah. I'd say so. Especially considering the troublesome Northstar V-6. What's more, I've never thought twice about my decision. 

Shame too considering the general condition of the car. I mean, look at this thing. Zero rust and nary a hint of cigarette smoke inside either. This was by far and away the cleanest car they had on the lot at the time. However, this thing is just so damn ugly. I mean, seriously, look at that rear end.  Can you say, "too many chefs in the kitchen?" The three quarter view is fairly handsome. It's certainly no first generation Aurora but oh, dat ass. And something tells me many people feel the same way seeing this car is still for sale and with the price reduced another $600 or so. Such a deal, right?

Those first Aurora's were something, weren't they? They weren't for everyone but for those of us who "got them", they may have been the best looking domestic sedan of the 1990's. I know. That's not saying much but these cars did have it going on to such a degree that I remember well heeled buyers cross shopping them with far more prestigious luxury makes and models. Kid you not. But too many buyers fund the design polarizing and Oldsmobile over priced them. Just as well as it was too late to save Oldsmobile anyway; the first Aurora was too little, too late and if anything, may have staid off extinction by five another five years or so. That said, you have to applaud the clean sheet progressive thinking that went into them.

I think I could have warmed to this car if it was the baby brother to an Aurora that didn't eschew so much of the original; sort of the way the Oldsmobile Intrigue was to it. My wife put it best when she said, "I liked the Aurora, but not this one".