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".

1995 Lexus SC400 - Happy Wife, Happy Life



My wife and I knew when we bought this 1995 Lexus SC400 from the owner of this ridiculous house outside Cleveland, Ohio that the pricy Nakamichi sound system didn't work. Ok. Fine. But the intermittent glowing of the "TRAC" light, that's independent of the traction control system being on or off, the ABS light occasionally going on and the power adjustable mirrors not working all conspired to have both of us taking a deep breath followed by, "oh, god, what have we done?" The problems all being intermittent, save for the dead mirrors, even the radio works sometimes, assuaged our anxiety but only so much.

 

One of the weirder things our "Lexie" also did from the get go, I guess we deliriously failed to notice it on our test drive, was when we'd roll up the driver's side window a muffled yet sharp "crack" sound, like a rock hitting the windshield, would emanate from deep behind the genuine wood trimmed door panel. Also, from inside the driver's door, there was a strangely pleasant sound of small maraca's shaking when we drove at speed on the highway; no such pleasantries came from the passenger side door panel. Something was definitely up inside the driver's door but hakuna matata, right? No worries, it's a Toyota and nothing ever goes wrong with a Toyota.  

 



One recent morning, my wife called me annoyed and semi-frantic that driver's side window got stuck about half way up. "Relax," I purred, "It's nothing." Of course, I had no idea at the time what was wrong but knowing my wife's reaction to whatever is wrong in situations like this is directly linked to my reaction, I played it cool. Besides, how bad could the problem be?

I dismantled the door and found the regulator had broken. Actually, from the looks of it, it was probably hanging on for dear life for quite a while and that mariachi band playing was its death throws. What dismantled my stomach lining was the difficulty I had not only finding a replacement regulator but one that was affordable. The first one I found was on a website that had the cheesy look of a site you don't admit to perusing but at just shy of $300 I knew I had to be able to due better. I was further traumatized when the big Lexus dealer in Cleveland quoted me $1162.86 for one. Oh. My god. The junkyard I get 99% of my parts from didn't have one either. The hell was I going to do?

 

 

Keep calling junkyards, that's what I did. I don't know how these places work but it would appear that they're all not on the same network. My regular yard in Cleveland didn't have one nor could find one but a yard in Youngstown hooked me up with one off a 1994 SC300 that was, get this, in Cleveland. Best was they wanted just $75 for it and that included the motor - not that I needed it. I even got to swarm all over the donor car for other parts I might need. Unfortunately, there wasn't much left to pick off the poor thing.

 

Anyway, the replacement regulator went in without drama except for the fact that the window sticks up out of the door by about an inch or so. Blame that on the part coming from a '94 and not a '95 - apparently Lexus altered the body slightly mid year 1994 - who knew? Frustrating but it is what it is but since this has become the wife's ride and she could care less, I have better things to do than fuss over something that she finds inconsequential. She's happy and that's all that matters.

 

 

Happy wife, happy life. Let's fix that radio next.

1969 Pontiac Catalina - Sometimes The Good Old Days Were Actually Good

The week after the fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, I stumbled across this fifty year old Pontiac Catalina for sale at a little used car lot down the street from my new office in Youngstown, Ohio. Ambitiously priced at $7,500, it's far from perfect but it's in pretty good, rust free condition. I wish I took more pictures of it but a guy from the lot's sales office came out and stood on top of me as I slobbered all over it - tire kicking with no intent of buying something is fine but I don't feel comfortable taking a boat load of photos with someone breathing down my neck. It's a used car lot, after all, and not some car show. Still, I should have. It's in a bad part of town and the lot stores all their cars inside a big garage after hours so there's little chance I'll be able to take more photos of it without some sales person on top of me. Oh well. 

It's rust free because it's an Arkansas car and I didn't ask why and how it's all the way up here in god forsaken Youngstown. She sure is big too - two hundred and sixteen and a half inches long and unlike many big cars from that era that are actually quite cramped inside, the interior felt cavernous and airy. Behind the wheel I didn't mind the lack of a power seat adjuster either - just a door to door bench seat drenched in "Naugahyde"; a very catchy name GM called their wears-like-iron vinyl upholstery back then. The height was fine for me and the steering wheel angle too despite no tilt or telescoping adjustment. Front seat was a little springy, though and offered absolutely no support what so ever. The test drive, although short, was epic.

Driving an old car is a trip back in time that even trumps walking through your childhood home after decades away since most likely a lot of your home has changed. I know mine did to the extent I barely recognized a square inch of the interior. An original time capsule like this? Surreal. Don't get me wrong, this is a horrible car although it sounded great and its 400 engine pulled it off the line like a freight train. The steering was incredibly over boosted - not  unlike it was like when new. The shocks were dead, though, and did little to cushion me from the undulations of Youngstown's legendarily horrible streets. That along with the springy seats made for what I would imagine would be an exhausting car to drive. Even with new shocks. And springs for that matter. Still, that big V-8 in a very good state of tune was a hoot to peg.

Our literal golden oldie has one of two Pontiac 400 cubic inch V-8's offered in 1969, hence the 400 on the fender (if you can see it).  Standard was a 290 horsepower 400 that required premium fuel while a no cost option 265 horse version was also offered. Why? Who knows. A four barrel 400 was offered as well that made 330 horsepower while a 428 engine making 390 hp topped the engine lineup. Those horsepower number sound like contemporary numbers but keep in mind these are generous SAE "gross" ratings - subtract forty percent of the gross to get reasonably close to what the "net" would be. So, if our Catalina here makes 290 gross horses, she'd make approximately 174 net. The math makes sense considering contemporary road test results of this car with a 400 "two barrel" engine have it going from zero to sixty in 9.3 seconds. It felt much stronger than that because the lion's share of the engine's torque comes on right off idle. That's always fun.

For 1969, the Catalina was Pontiac's middle model in their full size triumvirate between the entry level "Executive" and their top drawer "Bonneville". Sharing underpinnings with the Chevrolet Impala and Caprice, Oldsmobile 88 and Buick Wildcat and LeSabre, the Catalina was part of one of my favorite eras and types of American automobiles - GM full size cars made between 1965 and 1970. Somewhat ironic although I've come to fathom it a total coincidence, I was born in 1964 and these would have been my first experience with brand new cars. Epitomizing GM styling at its high point, these cars were bolted together quite well too and had interiors that were equally as handsome being devoid of injection molded plastic. In a time when the size of a car was still a bragging point, GM's replacements for these cars come 1971 may have been bigger but they certainly weren't better. In many regards they were literally gigantic steps backwards.

Driving this big old Poncho, really all cars of this era, aside from the beauty of their "Coke bottle" styling, I was amazed at how primitive it is compared even to cars that would be made not ten years later. Please note I didn't say they were better but driven by myriad circumstances, those later cars had engineering advances that were seemingly moon shot like compared to this car that hearkened from a by gone era of automobile design that placed form over function. Sometimes the good old days were actually really good.

Juxtapose this car and cars just like it against Apollo 11. While it's been said the Apollo space ships, had less computing power than a modern iPhone, the damn thing still landed on the freakin' moon for crying out loud. Meanwhile, mortals down here drove automobiles that had more in common with a Conestoga Wagon than a moon lander.  So, where the Apollo's advanced for their time or were cars like our Catalina stuck in an automotive stone age with no impetus to evolve in 1969? Me thinks, like so often is the case in life, the answer to that question lies somewhere in the middle. 

2019 Nissan Rogue - What's In a Name?

The only way I can make peace with the growing ubiquity of cross overs is if I tell myself that they're an evolution of the automobile as opposed to some sort of new "vehicle segment" that's taking over the world. If the growth in their popularity was more incremental, that evolution would be more  obvious. The last time the automobile industry saw a seismic change like this was in the 1930's when they shifted, very quickly, to all steel bodies.

I admit I do get, to some extent, what people appreciate about cross overs - that being utility with an elevated driving position and in some cases a dollop of style. I actually (swallows pride) really like some of them too although they're usually higher end models like the Porsche Macan. What I don't get, however, is what anyone sees in what has become the quintessential, bread and butter cross over poster CUV, the Nissan Rogue.

Based on the platform that underpins the compact Nissan Sentra, the amorphous Rogue has been around since 2008. Nissan redesigned it in 2014 to be less androgynous and they gave it a fairly substantial update in 2017. That tweaking apparently worked wonders - Nissan has pushed out nearly a million Rogues since.

In Nissan showrooms, the Rogue occupies the middle slot between the subcompact, Versa based Kicks and the "full size" Altima\Maxima platform based Murano. Yeah...many vehicle manufacturers now have a full line of cross overs akin to the line up they used to have of sedans. Oddly enough, Nissan still sells the Frontier pickup truck based Pathfinder but that's considered an SUV and not a crossover. Nissan tops their cross over and SUV portfolio with the Titan pickup truck based "Armada" and it, remarkably, doesn't look like a PED juiced up Rogue like the Pathfinder does. Instead, it looks like something off the set of a 1990's Mighty Morphin Power Rangers TV show.

What's mind boggling is that the Rogue sells well in spite of other vehicles in its segment offering a superior seat of the pants experience, more up to date features and tech and that are, subjectively in most if not all cases, better looking. The Rogue's styling, at least through my eyes, looks as though it's not finished and is the embodiment of modern day bland although the 2014 and 2017 models are way superior to the 2008 models. Compared to other vehicles in what has become over the last ten years a very hotly contested segment, they're no bargain either. Nicely equipped the way most people would get them new, they run north of thirty five grand. Same price as the Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV, Jeep Cherokee and probably the best of the bunch, the Mazda CX-5. There's a a myriad of others out there too. I just listed the best ones based on road test reviews.

The Nissan Rogue is so popular these days that two women my wife works with not only bought two together at the same time, they bought two identical ones. Same color and all. SMH. What's more, a guy I work with told me that his mother and sister did the same thing albeit they got different colors. Seriously. Ladies, what the hell?

Perhaps I've touched on something - is there some correlation between its ominous, foreboding name and women? In my experience, women say they want a partner who's edgy and exciting but in reality, they want someone who may appear to be dangerous but is primarily reliable and steadfast.  The last thing in the world most women want is someone who's actually a "rogue". Oh, again, they may say they do but, c'mon. They really don't.

Perhaps it's the name of Nissan's mid sized cross over that I have the biggest beef with and not so much the vehicle itself. I think the name is great - if only it wasn't festooned to something so mediocre. If the Nissan Rogue truly was "rogue", it should at least be capable of doing something quasi exotic like going from zero to sixty in three and half seconds, pulling 1.0+ g's on a skid pad, have the capability to climb a mountain side or at least have styling that's at least somewhat evocative. What's in a name? If its driving sales, as I believe it does to some degree here, than in this case it means everything.

Volvo P1800 - Family Secrets

I kick myself over never asking that cook in the hospital kitchen I worked in when I was in college why he had one of these. Just as well. Rather than hear some story about it being an uncle's hand-me-down, just something he bought on the cheap or he bought it because he was a fan of some long off the air British TV show, I'd rather not know anything about why and how he came to have one. At best, I can only hope that he appreciated these cars for what they were and went to great lengths to keep it running.

For me personally, I've always loved them and could care less they were made famous in TV show. When I'd tell some people these are one of my favorite cars of all time, they look at me incredulously when I tell them I had no idea they were featured in some TV show.  My appreciation for these cars much like my young sons appreciating black and gold Pontiac Trans Am's without their having any idea they were made famous in some movie. After all, cool is cool and it's timeless.

Anyway, to people of a certain vintage, these Volvo's are memorable because Roger Moore's character in the 1960's British TV series, "The Saint" drove one. Also turns out he drove the car used in the series as his personal daily driver back then. Does begs the question as to whether or not he actually liked the car that much or it was all a publicity stunt for the show.

As far as the cars go, in the 1950's, legend has it Volvo wanted a sports car as a way to increase showroom traffic and shed what even back then was a dowdy, frumpy image. While their first attempt, a two passenger, plastic bodied, rolling bathtub called the Volvo Sport (above) was a complete failure, their second attempt became an instant classic.

Using a shortened wheelbase version of the already well established Volvo 122, Volvo commissioned Italian design house Pietra Frura to pen the lines of the 1800 - named for its 1.8 liter, in line four cylinder engine. What's odd is that while Pietra Frura came up with four designs for Volvo executives to choose from, the design Volvo chose was actually done by the son of Volvo's head of engineering who, another legend has it, was moonlighting as a designer at Pietra Frura. Weird. I know. Volvo kept the fact that their "Italian designed" sports car was actually designed by a Swede a secret for fifty years. Ah, but such is the stuff of family secrets, y'know?

Well, marketing the 1800 as "Italian designed" had to have part of the plan to make the car even more avant garde. Whomever designed these, and it's simple elegance bespeaks to a design done by a small group of designers if not indeed one person, came up with, arguably, one of the most beautiful and still to this day underappreciated automobile designs of the twentieth century. And, on top of all that, it's a forward thinking Volvo. Wow.

Adding to the 1800's mystique was that for most of its life, Volvo didn't have the factory capacity to produce them. From 1961-1968, "Pressed Steel", a British metal works company built the bodies and British car maker Jensen assembled those bodies to chassis, shells and running gear shipped from Sweden. So, a Volvo supposedly designed in Italy and built in England certainly made for what could be construed by some as a near exotic. Even if it was little more than a 122 with a sexy body bolted on it.

Despite the acclaim that the design of the 1800 got, though, regardless of whomever designed it, no other Volvo of the era, or since save, debatabley, for the "shooting brake" C30 they sold between 2007 and 2013, has shared any of its design moxie. That's a shame too considering how wonderful looking these cars were. Family secret and all.

1988 Volvo 240 - You'll Never Die In a Volvo

The other night I was westbound on the Ohio Turnpike southeast of Cleveland when some ass wipe in a late model Volvo S60 suddenly tucked up behind my rear bumper then jutted to his right and blew by me like a fighter jet catapulted off an air craft carrier. I assume it was a he because I've never seen a woman drive so recklessly. Now, while I begrudgingly respect that kind of athleticism and nerve behind the wheel, ultimately I resent it because if someone driving like that crashes, they'll probably take out more than just themselves. And, they're going to delay a whole bunch of people as well. That said, what struck me was that he was making those incredibly dangerous maneuvers in, of all things, a Volvo.

Back in my day, and I say this with tongue firmly in cheek, Volvo's where "boxy but good" and where driven by upstanding citizens who lived their lives as carefully and prudently as possibly. They certainly weren't the types of vehicles you'd drive at a break neck clip zig zagging in traffic either because, quite simply, they really couldn't be driven that way. Again, back in my day, Volvo's were known for being sensible, safety first vehicles. In fact, Volvo's been touting the virtues of safety going back to their origins in the 1920's.

My first experience with one stems from a two day jaunt with a friends baby blue, 1988 Volvo 240 in the early to mid '90's. Our subject here, which looks just like it, I believe is a 1992. I forget the circumstances behind why he lent me his car but being the car guy that I am, I've never turned down an opportunity to drive something I've never driven before.  Especially an automobile held in as high regard as an almighty Volvo whether I really needed the car or not. However, to say that I was underwhelmed by the experience was an understatement. Grateful for the loaner but not impressed with the car.

Not unlike not getting or appreciating a movie that the masses adore, I, for one, failed to see what the hub bub was about these cars. I found his 240 to be bog slow to the point I thought something was wrong with the engine and the handling to be truck like. I did find the drivers seat very comfortable, visibility to be excellent and for some reason I found the styling to be pleasant if not down right attractive. I still do. Especially the five door, 240 wagons. I just wish the darn thing drove and handled more like what I thought it would drive like. That being a BMW or a Mercedes from the era.

I'm not alone in that sentiment either. Contemporary road tests of 240's were not kind to their clumsy driving dynamics and moribund lack of pace. Then again, they were never intended to be any sort of sports sedan. Remarkably, they found buyers. Lots of them. Relatively speaking of course.

What made Volvo's memorable was their advanced safety engineering and Volvo, wisely and subtlety, marketed that their cars were "safer" than other cars. That marketing struck a chord with those people who were pragmatic and reasonable if not highly intelligent. They weren't adrenaline junkies juking in and out of traffic. Again, not that you could drive a Volvo aggressively even if you wanted to.

Volvo is often given credit for either inventing or refining many of the safety features on cars we take for granted today. Like safety cages, laminated glass, three-point seat belts, rear facing child seats, front and rear crumple zones, whiplash protection, side curtain airbags, blind spot information systems, electrical parking brakes, lane departure warning, pedestrian alert systems and of course, the proverbial "and much more".

By the late 1980's, though, as many manufacturers caught up to or surpassed Volvo's legacy for safety, about the only thing they had left going for them was the notion that, much in the same way wearing surgical scrubs or a white lab coat do, driving a Volvo raised a driver's perceived I.Q. That and the well earned public sentiment that you "won't die in a Volvo" were not exactly the bedrock upon which to continue to build forward thinking, advanced automobiles. In a world where every car was rapidly becoming a "Volvo", a substantial rethink of the brand was way overdue. We car wonks awaited with baited breath for a car that could fly from the wunder kids in Sweden.

It's not that everything Volvo came out with after 1992, like the 850 pictured here, wasn't a vastly superior automobile to the 240. The problem was nothing, which only in retrospect can be deemed damned near impossible to do, could achieve what the 240 did. Volvo set their own bar so high that they'd have to clear it to remain relevant. Due to mitigating circumstances like being sold to Ford and then to a Chinese conglomerate along with the sheer magnitude of the task, Volvo has continually failed to live up to what it had been. And that's too bad.

While Volvo's today can perform at levels that are nothing short of absurd, case in point that yahoo in a S60 on the turnpike the other night, they fail to offer anywhere near the cache of other aspirational brands. So, left alone to their own (styling) devices and without being able to rely on the real or perceived notion of safety or road going invincibility, Volvo, which these days sells about half the number of cars they did twenty years ago, is slowly melting away and runs the risk of not only remaining irrelevant but becoming extinct.

Based on what I saw the other night, and least they're now fast as hell and can handle like a slot car. And if Mr. Speedy McSpeedspeed crashes his Volvo at 100 miles per hour, he'll probably walk away from the wreck without a scratch. 

2020 Jeep Gladiator - Knock-Knock. Who's There?

I'm not a Jeep or truck person but amazingly, and despite its wretched name, I find love Jeep's new "Gladiator". Particularly these top of the line Rubicon's. Do I like them enough to buy one? Oh, hell no. But I like them enough that I wouldn't dissuade you from buying one if you can afford it.

Speaking of which, one of these fully loaded runs more than $55,000. I kid you not. The base model, what they call "Gladiator Sport", stickers north of thirty three grand and most will go out the door at more than forty. That's. Insane. Then again, I haven't bought a new vehicle in going on twenty years so I am, honestly, disconnected as to what new cars and trucks cost these days. But still, that said, fifty thousand dollars is a ton of money. Especially for a depreciating asset. Many a reviewer of these also sight how expensive they are so I'm not completely off base. Crunching raw numbers, a thirty six month lease payment on one comes out to around $1,500 a month, probably more. A sixty month term on a purchase puts you at more than $900. A month. Holy shit bombs. From a purely financial perspective these make absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

What I find amazing about these things is how much adding a pickup truck bed improves the overall look of the Wrangler Unlimited. They're like a sexy jack hammer that doubles as salad tongs. How I wish the rode and drove and sweet as they look. I haven't driven one yet but having spent considerable wheel time with Wrangler's in the past, I don't have much hope they'd float down the road like my old Lexus.

If the "Gladiator" name plate seems vaguely familiar to you, it means you're either a Jeep nerd or you're of a certain vintage. To most people, I have to imagine, "Gladiator" means to them either Russel Crowe's 2000 epic or the never funny, sophomoric "knock-knock" joke.

Those old Gladiators were big, brutish oh-so-manly trucks built off the same chassis Jeep built the original (and lovely) Wagoneer on. This new Gladiator is obviously an off shoot of the Wrangler "Unlimited" and is, sadly, only available as a four door. Check out this amazing looking two door Gladiator concept here. 

Jeep built the original Gladiator, technically, from 1963 through 1988 although they dropped the "Gladiator" name after 1971. Why? Probably because it's utterly ridiculous. From 1972-1988, Jeep just referred to them as the Jeep pickup or J-series. Their designs seem somewhat iconic now but they were really worn out by the time Jeep pulled the plug on them in 1988. Actually, Chrysler did shortly after they bought Jeep in 1987 from AMC; AMC having bought Jeep back in 1970. In retrospect, they were around for so long and blended into the landscape, like highly stylized anything tends to do, and they became as invisible as anything else on the road. Only in retrospect can we honestly appreciate them for the wonderful looking unique designs they were.

It wasn't the only pickup Jeep had ever built until the plucky Gladiator - they also built a small pickup they called "Comanche" from 1985-1992 based on the compact Cherokee - which is not to be confused with "Grand Cherokee". I guess they ran out of Indian names and were hesitant to plaster "Gladiator" on something until now. (He stifles a forced giggle. Don't ask why).

The Comanche was a (horrible looking) three box dork machine and Chrysler, whom, again, had bought out Jeep in 1987, mercifully killed it off after 1992 and they haven't built a Jeep pickup since. Some hypothesize that's because a Jeep pickup would compete directly with Dodge and Ram pickups. And when you think about it that makes sense. So, why'd they start now?

Well, no doubt because mid size pickups are molten hot right now; in particular the hot-rod, gussied up off road versions. What with the success of the GM's Chevrolet Colorado\GMC Canyon twins, the rebirth of the Ford Ranger and Toyota's Tacoma, amongst other new or newish offerings, Jeep wanted in on the fun. Chrysler, or should I say "FCA", amazingly, didn't have a mid size truck in their Ram lineup - "Dakota" ghosted from Dodge showrooms after 2011 and there's been nary a replacement since. FCA probably had this concept up their sleeve for years now waiting for the just right moment to launch.

Well, I guess that moment is now and this handsome devil is getting rave reviews despite, again, it's oh-my-god sticker price. And it's name. I'll blog again about a Gladiator if I ever get a chance to spend any serious wheel time with one rather than just copy and paste someone else's gobble dee gook notes and make it seem as though I drove one. Knock-knock. Who' there?