1994 Chevrolet Caprice Classic - Baby LT1

 

I felt like a kid on Christmas morning that summer day in 1990 when my new car magazine arrived with a first road test review of a new-for-'91 Chevrolet Caprice (our subject here is a 1994). I hadn't even seen a glimpse of what these were going to be except reading oh-so-vague teases about the wonderful design innovations Chevrolet had in store for the first major update of the venerable Caprice since 1977. I was put off by the lack of a coupe but the fact that Chevrolet was coming with a new, rear-wheel-drive, V-8 powered Caprice was enough to make me feel as though I was living through the glory days of GM and it was 1960 all over again. In a good way. 

                                                                                  

Talk about being led to believe Santa's was bringing you a puppy and you clothing instead. These things hit Chevrolet showroom floors in late 1990 with a profound thud. 

Heralded at first as GM at it's finest with regards to design and engineering, their much bally-hooed 1977 downsized full-sized cars had grown very long in the tooth, make that very, long in the tooth by the time they finally updated them starting with the Caprice (and Buick Roadmaster) for 1991. 

Unlike GM of the '50's and '60's with a near revolution of design of their wares seemingly every year if not two and no longer than three, changes to the "class of '77" were incremental if not anecdotal over the years. And then 1991 came around. 

Looking somehow larger than they actually were, they were only about an inch longer than the 1977-1990 Caprice's they replaced but they were almost two inches wider. The jokes started flying immediately about how much they looked like whales. Beached whales.

Nicknamed "Shamu" after the famous killer whale, Chevrolet did their best to alter the appearance for 1993 by removing their most distinctive styling detail, the pseudo-rear fender skirts that made the back ends look like '49 Nash's. Careful what you wish for. 

You'd think the revised rear quarters would have resulted in a Caprice resembling a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria, as if that would've been a good thing but it would have been an improvement, but if you notice, the rear axle didn't line up with the fender opening resulting in making a wonky design amazingly even more wonky. Doing it "right" would have required a major design and engineering reboot of the rear of the car; a costly and time consuming process that got nixed no doubt because General Motors was going to harpoon these things anyway come model year 1997. 

Under the hood things actually got interesting for '94 as General Motors slipped in a somewhat detuned version of  of the venerable "LT1" engine first introduced on the 1992 Corvette; please note that's "LT1" not "LT-1" of early 1970's Chevy engine fame. In the Caprice, Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, it was fitted with iron heads and different intake and exhaust manifolds, purportedly to make less noise, and made 260-horsepower and 330 foot-pounds of torque. Not quite the 300-horsepower the Corvette engine made but it was quite the upgrade. Contemporary road tests clocking the "LT1" Caprice from zero-to-sixty in 6.6-seconds.  That's ho-hum today but thirty years ago that kind of performance in family-sedan was borderline hedonistic. 

However, not all Caprice's of this vintage were created equal. Our black-on-maroon Shamu here is powered by the "L-99" version or what's referred to as the "baby LT1". Displacing 4.3-liters or 263-cubic inches, with it's shorter stroke and smaller bore, it made 200 horsepower and 245 foot-pounds; about what the engines it replaced made - the throttle-body fuel injected 5.7 making in horsepower and the 5.0 making in torque. 

The "L-99" was a bit of an odd and unique duck, or whale, with its mission either to provide better fuel economy than the bigger 5.7 did or was an excuse to charge more for the bigger engine. Spend money to make money, I guess. It was only offered on the Caprice. 

The larger 5.7 engine was featured in the big dog Impala SS Chevrolet made from 1994-1996. With it's lowered suspension, meaty tires and monochromatic paint and finish schemes, the funky, skirt-free rear quarters worked quite well aesthetically. The smaller rims, standard suspension and chrome trim on the Caprice doing updated '94-'96 Shamu's no favors. 

While the '94-'96 Impala SS is one of the rare '90's sedans, domestic or foreign, that's actually appreciating in value, Caprice's like this are languishing. This one here, despite it's near immaculate condition, is for sale with an asking price of $6,995. An Impala SS in this kind of shape would have an asking price north of twenty-grand if not more. 

I'd have a hard time dropping that kind of money for a '94-'96 Impala SS - they're still mid-'90's GM junk inside but that's just me. However, if you've got a hankering for the bad old days of '90's General Motors, comment below and I'll do my best to hook you up with this Caprice. I've seen these were someone has attempted to make them into Impala SS clones and most of them look like what they are; my advice is to keep it as it is and drive it for what it as such. 

1970 Cadillac Coupe deVille - They Said There'd Be No Math

Today's Facebook Marketplace gem is a 1970 Cadillac Coupe deVille originally hailing from the great state of Utah and now resides in god forsaken Lorain, Ohio roughly thirty miles or so west of Cleveland. Thanks to the ship building industry, Lorain used to be a bustling little city on the shores of Lake Erie but when the plants closed Lorain became a ghost town. Through my goggles, somehow this big old, patina rich Cadillac fits right into the motif of what's left of the town. 

Cadillac built a "Coupe deVille" from 1949 through 1993 in various guises and with the exception of the 1985-1988 models, they were all big if not ginormous. At 225 inches long, our 1970 here was replaced in 1971 by a model that was just under an inch longer. That was nothing, though. By 1976, due to federally mandated five-mile per hour "safety bumpers", a Coupe deVille was more than 230 inches long; try backing that sucker up let alone this one in the undersized parking garage at the mall. Well, no one goes to malls anymore so you should be ok. This vintage was originally launched, or were, ha-ha, christened, in 1965 with GM making subtle and not so subtle styling changes every year through 1970.  

Biggest visual difference is the headlights on the 1965-1968 models are stacked, on the '69 and '70 models they're side-by-side. Personally, I prefer the side-by-side look but I wouldn't kick a stacked headlight '65-'68 model out of my garage. Under the hood, 1965-1967's have the 1964 vintage Cadillac 429 engine; '68-'70's have the "472". 

Cadillac generously claimed the "472" made three hundred seventy-five (gross rated) horsepower. I back about forty-percent off that gross rating to get the net output and, they said there'd be no math when I started this blog, that puts it at about two hundred twenty-five brake horses. These big mills being all about torque, slicing forty-percent off the gross torque rating of five hundred twenty-five foot-pounds gives us roughly three hundred and fifteen. Which seems about right given these handsome 4,700 brutes were clocked zero-to-sixty in around ten seconds. Certainly "slow" by today's standards but more than adequate fifty-years ago. I'd ditch this insane gas hog of an engine for an LS but...that's just me. 

1969 and 1970 Cadillac's are hard to decipher from one another. I always go by the front grill with the 1970's having more of an egg grate versus the 1969's more slotted design. The challenge there is remembering which year goes with which grill. Whoops. There I go telling tales out of school as to how us "spotters" tell one model year from another. Wheel covers are different too with the '69's wearing the same discs Cadillac had going back to '65; the handsome chrome on the '70's is unique to that model year. That means good luck finding one if you need one. This one here has all four. Bonus!

The exterior appears to have been a light blue but the interior? A light green, perhaps? If I had my druthers, I wouldn't touch the exterior save for maybe fixing that rust spot on the lower passenger side front fender and leaving the area in primer. Hopefully that's the extent of the rot. Seeing it's a Utah car there's a good chance that's it. If this were a car native to northern, Ohio I'd say run away. Far, far, away. And as quickly as possible before you fall in love with this car's multitude of charms. 

The interior I'd reupholster although that would mean giving up what appears to be layers of Autozone seat covers and Aunt Beatrice's best throw rug. Change the carpet and door panels too although finding a passenger side door panel or, "card" as they call them, might be challenging. These aren't exactly "catalog" cars. Hopfully the dash isn't cracked but seeing it's from a sunny climate, well, sunnier than Cleveland, chances are that'll have to be swapped out too. 

So, in the end, seeing how expensive good paint jobs cost these days, we'd have a painfully cool looking rat-rod with a luxurious interior that you could drive anywhere. And for not a lot of money either, relatively speaking. What could be better? 

 

1960 Ford Falcon - Not My Cup of Maalox

Throughout the 1950's American cars, save for American Motors models, grew somewhat inexplicably in size. Ford models, for instance, increasing in length from a relatively tidy 196 inches in 1949 to more than 208 by 1959; that of course nothing compared to what was to come. While a 208 inch long '59 Ford Galaxie was diminutive compared to a 227 inch long Lincoln Continental, many buyers clamored for smaller models - of which at Ford, GM and Chrysler, there were none. That all changed for model year 1960 when they all came with compact models, Ford introducing the "Falcon" in the fall of 1959 as a 1960 model in four different guises; four and two door sedans and two and four-door station wagons.  

Our "Tudor" wagon here is a 1960 and is for sale in a northern suburb of Detroit with an asking price of $10,500. Personally, I think that kind of ask laughable but if you've spent any time looking at used cars these days, regardless of how old they are, you'd know the only things that appear to be reasonably priced are cars that need serious work. 

Ford pushed these out from 1960 through 1970 with a fairly substantial and tasteful (subjective) reboot for model year 1964. They actually sold quite well...at least at first. Although, a lot of those sales may have been because what GM and Chrysler rolled out where just too out there. They say playing to a tie is like kissing your sister but what do they say about winning by default? 

Ford did with the Falcon what GM and Chrysler should have done; simply shrink an existing design. There was a whole lot more to it than simply "shrinking" a Ford Galaxie, of course, but at least in terms of looking conventional, and in the case of the rear-engine, air-cooled Corvair, using tried and true engineering, the Falcon was a whole lot more "normal" looking than what GM or Chrysler had. Throw in anything American Motors while we're at it too. 

That's not to say they weren't without their merits, especially these wagons. Approximately two-feet shorter than a Galaxie with a curb weight a good three-quarters of a ton less while having almost the same amount of interior room, these cars were far more maneuverable and purportedly got up to thirty-miles per gallon with the base, 144 cubic-inch, "Falcon Six" (our subject here as a 200 cubic-inch "Special Six" from 1966). With more cubic feet of storage than my 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe, our Ford Falcon "Tudor" wagon adds up to a veritible revolution in domestic automobile packaging the likes of which hadn't been seen the Model T. 

And you thought this was just a homely little two-door Ford station wagon. You know, if this were a sleeper and not in need of some costly rust repair I might "get" this car in particular but in general, as is the case with just about all small cars from this era, it's just not my cup of Maalox. Although, as they say, clothes (can) make the person, it's underpinnings with only the slightest modifications did provide the foundation for one fine looking automobile come April 17, 1964 when Ford introduced the Mustang. 

1976 Pontiac Catalina - I'm Batman

Funny what a paint job and a lowered suspension can do for an otherwise run-of-the-mill mid 1970's Pontiac. This is a 1976 Catalina and she's for sale in Niles, Ohio for, what appears to be just from the pictures, not an unreasonable asking price of $5,000. Well, honestly, I think this is a good $3,000-$3,500 car but knowing this insane car market I know it's not over-priced. 

I'd never give one of these a second look in factory paint and trim as I've always felt these were over styled, fluffy, wannabee luxury cars. But, peel off the vinyl top, apply matte finish liberally to the body and wheels (this looks professionally done), chop a coil or two off the springs fore and aft and, voila. The closest thing to the Bat Mobile you'll find from here to Gotham City. Even putting white-letter tires on would mess up the sheer mysterious essence of it. 

From 1974 through 1976, Pontiac shared that that far out "B-pillar" with a roll-up and down window on the Catalina with the Oldsmobile 88 and Buick LeSabre; I much prefer it to the "glasshouse-donk" on Chevrolet's and C-body Oldsmobile's, Buick's and Cadillac's. Half pillared coupe and hard top, it really gets accentuated with the funky paint job. The matte finish also helps bring to life the hunched shoulders of the upper rear quarter panels that you don't find on Chevrolet or Oldsmobile B-body two-door sedans of this vintage. No word if any work's been done under the hood where Pontiac's 400 cubic-inch V-8 would sit. What the price point is on this chances are it's all but original. Not a bad thing. Make it your own. 

I'd love to get this and drive around in it whispering to people at stop lights, "I'm Batman". 

The Catalina was originally a trim level denoting hard top Pontiac's from 1950 through 1958. From 1959 through 1981 it was Pontiac's "entry-level" full-size car. 

1983 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue - Sufficient

I find most four-door sedans as interesting as a dishwasher. This 1983 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue's no different but seeing the shape it's in and it's reasonable asking price of $4,500, my latest Facebook find here deserves a closer look. 

For 1983, Chrysler had two New Yorkers, our blue-on-blue subject and these front-wheel-drivers on a stretched wheelbase K-car platforms they called the "E-body". Why they named these cars "New Yorker" and not something different is a question even Ricardo Montalban couldn't get a direct answer for.  And if I'm ambivalent towards today's subject I was flat out disgusted by these tarted up K-car's. Sorry, "E-cars". 

"Fifth Avenue" was first found on 1979-1981 "R-body" New Yorker's and was a trim package featuring a unique padded "landau" vinyl top with "opera windows" that opened with the rear doors, two-tone beige exterior finish with colored-keyed (matching) interior with tufted, wait-for-it, "Corinthian Leather". Hard to believe these oafs had trouble finding buyers, y'know? The Chrysler "R-body", incidentally, was a lightly updated "B-body" which not only was Chrysler's previous intermediate sized chassis, it had its roots going back to Chrysler's infamous 1962 downsizing of Plymouth and Dodge models. 

Starting in 1982, what had been the Chysler LeBaron four-door, based on an updated Chrysler "F-body" chassis they dubbed "M-body", became the Chrysler New Yorker. Sadly, only four-door sedans where offered whereas the LeBaron had been offered in coupe and station wagon as well as a four-door. For '83, these cars were given the suffix "Fifth Avenue" to make the distinction between them and the front-wheel-drive New Yorker. Mercifully, it was only for 1983 as these cars where simply known as "Fifth Avenue" from 1984 through 1989. 

Not surprisingly, or surprisingly given the amount of effort Chrysler put into the E-car New Yorker, sales for these quite good reaching a high of just under 110,000 for model year 1984. Not bad for recycled platform that was for all intent and purposes pushed to the back of showrooms as the new kid was  brought in. That new model that was outsold most years by these cars. Good going, gramps. 

Suffice to say most of the buyers for these cars were older clientele who either abhorred change, embraced the "traditional" styling and engineering of these cars or didn't care for the awkward, angular lines of the K-car New Yorker. 

The hemming and hawing of nameplates wasn't unqiue to Chrysler either. GM and Ford did similar on  on their luxury flag ships back then as well. Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham, Continental Town Car, Town Car etc. We're also talking about an era that "New Coke" debuted in which was subsequently sold side-by-side with "Classic Coke" not long after. The 1980's were known for many things; intelligent marketing practices not one of them. 

So, in a used car market that is absolutely bonkers with rusted out, unrestorable junk selling for thousands of dollars, it's nice to see something that's in great shape priced appropriately. I don't like this car at any price but that's not to say you or someone else wouldn't. 

My time spent behind the wheel of one of these years ago was pleasant enough. It checks the boxes on a number of cliched luxury car styling themes and cues going back to before World War II. Upright, boxy styling, they're actually quite large at nearly 207 inches long although they're diminutive compared to even the R-body New Yorker. They had fancy looking interiors. rear-wheel drive, a heavy, isolated ride and of course a god's green earth V-8. 

In this case a 318 cubic-inch Chrysler V-8 fed with a two-barrel carburetor and controlled by the last version of Chrysler's lean-burn system. Net brake horsepower was 130 with 230 foot-pounds of torque. That was not a lot then and is all but laughable now but then again, it was a time before fuel-injection became the norm. And in a car weighing just shy of 3800 pounds, performance was sedate if not, in Rolls-Royce vernacular, "sufficient". 

Sufficient being fancy talk for "slow".  

This car is or was located in Willoughby, Ohio a stone's throw east of Cleveland. Comment below if you're interested and I'll do my best to hook you up. 

 

1976 Chrysler Cordoba - More Proof The World has Gone Crazy

If I had my druthers, whatever druthers are, I'd have a Chrysler Cordoba in my garage. I had a '75 when I was a kid and I loved it. Well, I loved having it; they're hardly the worst cars of the era but far from great so my affection for them is driven wholly by nostalgia. This '76 here popped on my Facebook Marketplace feed the other day and if we need more proof the world has gone bonkers, the asking price on it is $6,500. There's more to this than meets the eye at first but that's a lot of money for forty-five year old rich, "Corinthian" leather that needs a lot of body work and has a set of period incorrect rims on it. Tires don't even match.  

My '75 was a "360 2-barrel" car with a 2.4 rear end. And I thought I was all that and an eight pack of "pony bottle" Miller High Life. 

This thing is a little different. And then some. That's a Chrysler 400 with a performance cam, flow master exhaust, a gigantic high-rise intake manifold with who knows how big a four-barrel carb, apprently some head work has been done along with exhaust headers and a 3.91 rear axle set up. You know, in case someone needs to pull down some redwoods. 

But oh, this body. So, basically, this is an engine with a Chrysler Cordoba attached to it. If the owner has receipts for what was done to that honkin' motor this might be a decent deal. Get it for closer to five grand or less to make it even sweeter.  

No shots of the interior which you'd have to imagine is in just as bad shape as the body. And these cars are not what we refer to as catalog cars meaning you can just order what replacement parts you need online. 

I'd have left the body alone and not attempted to do well-intended DIY patchwork. Who doesn't love a sleeper rat rod?

 

1969 1/2 Ford Maverick - Establish-Mint

Her name was Helen Davis and she was my first real serious crush. Problem was she was my third-grade teacher and although she was very young, she was still a good twelve-to-thirteen years older than me; there was no way she'd "wait" for me. Adding to her mystique and cool elan, she allowed us kids to call her "Helen"; I was too shy around her to call her anything but "Miss Davis" but talk about early '70's progressive. Anyway, I adored her and her light green Ford Maverick that looked just like this well worn 1969 1/2. 

Ford introduced the Maverick on April 17, 1969, five years to the day after it's kissin' cousin the Mustang debuted. While actually out-selling the original Mustang in its first six-months of sales, contemporary road test reviewers tactfully eviscerated the new small Ford for it's soft suspension, slow steering, poor visibility and springy seats that sat the driver too low. While they were impressed with the around town performance of the six-cylinder engines, they weren't impressed with its 20-miles-per-gallon or so fuel economy.   

Frankly, I've always thought "Maverick" was an odd name for a bone-stripper economy car; ads like this played to the name of the car as opposed to what the car actually portended to be. Love the paint colors choices. Anti-Establish Mint? That's funny to see especially today.

In a way Miss Davis' Maverick was the quintessential young school teacher's car. Somewhat practical and nimble, it had a bigger trunk than that on a Datsun, was way more maneuverable than an LTD or Torino, had a dollop of style that even an eight or nine year old could appreciate and they were very affordable.  

Halfway through the third grade, my beloved Miss Davis suddenly became, "Mrs. Blohm"; pronounced "blome". As you can imagine I was semi-heart broken and what's more, the school's principal insisted us kids refer to her as "Mrs. Blohm" and not "Helen". Damn establish-mint. She had no problem with kids still referring to her as "Helen", though. 

I still called her "Miss Davis".