1962 Pontiac Tempest - Weird and Wonderful

Ah, the weird and wonderful 1961-1963 Pontiac Tempest; this Facebook Marketplace find is a '62. These little cars were Pontiac's 1961-1963 entry into the compact car market that Chevrolet first dove headfirst into with their really out-there, air-cooled, rear-engine Corvair in 1960. The Facebook ad misidentifies this as a Pontiac LeMans; LeMans was a trim package on the Tempest in 1961 and 1962 before becoming its own line in 1963. So, officially, this is a Pontiac Tempest LeMans. Asking price is $5,000. 

I know. Five-grand is a good chunk of change for one of these even in showroom\museum condition -  which this most certainly is not in. It's had a considerable amount of body work done and still needs a lot. Especially underneath - we can see here the unit-body has rusted away exposing the body shell. That's going to be expensive to fix - IF you can find someone to do it. At least the poster of the ad was forthcoming with it. 

The Corvair with its rear mounted engine was a costly endeavor for General Motors and to amortize development costs, General Motors mandated Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick use the same bodyshell and floor pan the Corvair used on their versions of the Corvair. Similarities all but ended there what with GM's semi-autonomous corporate structure; our Tempest along with Oldsmobile's F-85 and Buick Special rode on a slightly longer wheelbase than what the Corvair had and the P-O-B cars were front engine. Somewhat oddly, the Pontiac and Oldsmobile F-85 shared the same bodies. 

Being front engine and using the Corvair's floor pan that was all but flat, there were some hurdles to clear in getting torque from the engine to the rear wheels. Oldsmobile and Buick used a two-piece drive shift with a universal joint between the two halves meanwhile Pontiac used a thin, flexible, albeit wrought shaft that somewhat resembled a cable; it was nicknamed, "rope drive". Motor Trend thought so highly of the Pontiac Tempest that for 1961 they gave their haloed golden calipers as their "Car of the Year". 

In addition to "rope drive", Pontiac took funky to another level with what they stuffed under the hood. Since Pontiac and GM didn't have an inline four-cylinder engine at the time of the Tempest's development, Pontiac created their own using the right bank of their vaunted 389-cubic inch, "Trophy V-8". Displacing a whopping (for a four-cylinder) 195-cubic inches or 3.2-liters, with no balance shafts to quell the vibration inherent in four-cylinder engines and particularly large fours like this, the "Trophy 4" was one hell of a "paint shaker". Above is a picture of the big-little chugger from the Facebook ad. There's a video in the ad of it running and you can see it shaking.  

GM restyled the Tempest, Olds F-85 and Buick Special for 1963 removing most if not all the unique styling of the cars making them far more mainstream looking. Pontiac offered their stump-pulling 326-cubic inch V-8 for '63; too bad they didn't offer it on our '62 too. 

Despite the expense of development and even relatively decent sales, GM pulled the plug on the Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick compacts after 1963 moving the nameplates to GM's new-for-1964. "A-body" intermediates. They rebooted the Corvair's body for '65 and kept it around through 1969. 

As they say in the used car business, there's an "arse" for every seat. I've gone back to Facebook Marketplace trying to find this again - no dice. Apparently it's gone. High asking price, rust, paint mixer engine, rope drive and all. 

 

1968 Mercury Cougar - My Kinda Party

  

"My Kinda Party" was the title song of Jason Aldean's fourth studio album that was released late in 2010. The single peaked at number-two on the Billboard Hot Country songs chart and was certified "Platinum", denoting sales of at least two-million. "My Kinda Party" was written and originally recorded by Brantley Gilbert in 2009. Warning, incoming old fashioned name drop incoming, the first time I met Brantley, I asked him what kind of car he was referring to in the lyric from the song, "got the cover off the sixty-eight". He didn't miss a beat saying, "'my '68 Cougar". 

I knew I liked this kid. Here is a very young B.G. with his literal and figurative '68 he said he sold once for $4,000 to pay for his band to get back home to Georgia after a show in Texas. The guy he sold it to said he'd sell it back to him for what he paid for it but when Brantley went to do so, the guy went back on his word demanding $25,000. Long story short, after some negotiation and cajoling, Brantley got his '68 back. 

The Ford Motor Company's late and most often time not-so-great middle priced division produced a "Cougar" in various guises on-and-off over 34-model years. In my opinion, the only model years that mattered are 1967, the first year it came out, and 1968 like B.G.'s and this $15,000 Facebook Marketplace find; save for side markers on the front fenders on '68 Cougars in compliance with federal regulations, the cars are the same. Subsequently, those were boom years for the nameplate and for the market segment Ford all but, excuse me, sired in 1964, when they, ahem, foaled the Mustang. 

Ford sold nearly 681,000 Mustangs between its April 17, 1964 launch and the end of 1965 and by the end of the 1966 model year, Ford totaled near 1.3-million Mustangs sold making it the most successful new vehicle launch in automobile history. Not surprisingly, Mercury executives wanted a "Mustang" as well. A Mercury version was actually in the works alongside the original Mustang but Ford hedged their bets plowing all their marketing resources into one car and not two. Seeing the success of the Mustang, you could construe they focused and spent their money wisely. However, what was internally known as the "T-7", was to be a softer riding, luxury themed or tinged version of the Mustang. When Ford updated the Mustang for model year 1967, they allowed Mercury to introduce the "T-7"

Despite unique and quite handsome sheet metal stretched out on top of a three-inch longer wheelbase than the Mustang had, there were challenges with these cars right from the get go. Most of them circumstantial having nothing to do with the cars themselves. 

First, with a softer suspension tuning and lacking some key luxury accoutrements like power windows, with the Cougar's on average $300 higher price tag, customers who bought into the pretense of an "American Jaguar" were hard to come by. And despite finding some 150,000 buyers in 1967 and around 113,000 for 1968, Ford surmised those sales came at the expense of not only the Mustang, but sales of Mercury Comet's, Mercury's at the time intermediate offering. Not only did Mercury's market share not increase, the Ford Motor Company's as a whole didn't either. 

At least it had its to-die-for good looks. Along with funky, pointless cool doo-dads like concealed head lights and rear turn signals that blinked like the sequential tail lamps on Ford's hallowed Thunderbird did. Mercury even marketed these cars as being for the, get this, "man on his way to a Thunderbird". Ford had been experimenting with the this slotted, electric razor type front end for years before finally dropping it on the Cougar. 

Circumstantially, in 1967, General Motors came out with two ponies to compete with Ford's duo splitting the pony car blade of grass further. Sales were remarkably strong for the segment through the end of '60's, Chrysler's pony was the Plymouth Barracuda (Dodge didn't get one until 1970), but by the end of decade, it seemed those who wanted one got theirs and didn't repeat buy or were put off by insurance surcharges that tacked on a steep tariff to anything remotely construed as a performance car. 

Mercury built the Cougar on the same chassis as the Ford Mustang through 1973 doing a debatably ample job of disguising its Mustang's underpinnings. For 1974, Mercury lightly disguised a Ford Torino Elite as a "Cougar" thrusting the moniker into the burgeoning "personal luxury car" niche where it stayed stuck through 1997. A snappy performing but odd-looking coupe based on the Ford Contour debuted for MY 1998 through 2003. Them, sorry, Brantley and Janson, but the party was over. On an upside, Mercury sold more "Cougars" in their various guises than any other of their nameplates over its protracted 71-year existence. 

1994 Mercury Sable - The Pandemic May Finally Be Over

A sable is a small, weasel-like, omnivorous mammal indigenous to forests in the Northern hemisphere. Sadly, they're probably best known for their luscious fur coats more than anything else. 

The Ford Motor Company's late and more often than not "meh" middle division made a "Sable" from 1986 through 2003 and in 2008 and 2009. Based on whatever the then current version of Ford's Taurus was, oddly enough, when Ford changed the name of the Taurus to "Five Hundred" from 2004-2007, Mercury followed suit changing the name of their Sable to "Montego". 

But wait, there's more. When Ford changed the name of what what was the "Five Hundred" to "Taurus" for 2008 and 2009, the "Montego" became "Sable". Our sea foam, Facebook Marketplace find here is a 1994 Montego. Sorry, Sable. 

Seeing how below projections the Sable sold during it's protracted production run, it's somewhat amazing in retrospect Mercury built five different generations of it. Our '94 here part of the second-gen of Sables made between 1992 and 1995 and you wouldn't be alone not seeing the subtle changes in body work between the first two generations. You also wouldn't be alone in calling this a "Taurus". Which it for all intents and purposes it is. 

The Mercury Sable underscores the challenges the Ford Motor Company had in defining what a Mercury was. Created in 1938 to compete with General Motors' middle-priced Oldsmobile and Buick brands, on the rarest of occasions, for most of its 74-model years a "Mercury" was no more than a fancified Ford sold alongside Lincolns. 

At first a stand-alone division, Ford partnered Mercury with their Lincoln brand after World War II thus creating the Lincoln-Mercury division. If you're of a certain, shall we say, "vintage", the Lincoln-Mercury moniker actually meant something. Or, was supposed to mean something. Again, what that was always fairly murky. 

If anything, a "Mercury" portended to be somewhat of an aspirational premium brand being sold fender-to-fender with Ford's luxury brand. Similar to what Chrysler did with their "low-priced" Plymouth and upmarket Chrysler divisions in creating "Chrysler-Plymouth", the tangible difference was, on paper at least, on the rarest of occasion would a customer enter a Chrysler showroom looking to buy a New Yorker and left with a Plymouth Fury. However, it was not uncommon for someone to walk into a Lincoln store fixing to buy a Continental and drive off in a much less expensive equivalent Mercury. 

"Lincoln-Mercury" even rolled out a Taurus or Sable based Continental from 1988 through 1994. Although it had a longer-wheelbase and a more formal rear roofline, to those that knew, it was obvious those Continentals were Sables or Taurus' with little more than higher sticker prices. 

On the upside, The Ford Motor Company broke their own sedan mold with these cars debuting them in 1985 for model-year 1986. Front-wheel-drive on such a large vehicle as well as four-wheel-independent suspension, rack-and-pinion steering, an available four-speed-overdrive automatic transmission along with an aerodynamic unit-body was truly progressive in its day. 

GM girl I am, I much preferred the large-ish GM front-wheel-drivers introduced all but at the same time as the Sable and Taurus rolled out. Those even came in coupe guise whereas the Sable (and Taurus) didn't although the Sable and Taurus were available as wagons; the GM makes and models were not. Meanwhile, auto pundits showered these Fords with glowing reviews while damning the new-fangled Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac's with faint praise. 

If anything, our green (or is it blue?) Sable with just 136,000-miles on its 29-year-old analog ticker has a fairly reasonable asking price of $2,995. Get it for closer to $2,500 and you have yourself an even better deal. It's a private sale and no doubt would have another two-grand or so tacked on if it was sold at a corner used car lot; we all know those places are more financing shops than used car purveyors. Also, keep in mind that 12- to 18-months ago, this $2,995 Mercury Sable would have had an asking price double that. 

Looks like The Pandemic may finally, really be over. 

Oldsmobile Jetfire Turbo Rocket - It's Five O'clock Somewhere

We all have things in our attics, garages or basements we don't want to simply throw out or give away thinking they might be worth something. How else to explain why someone would think this 1962 Oldsmobile "Jetfire Turbo Rocket" would be worth $600. 

If anything, this is an interesting chunk of automobile history given that is one of the first turbochargers ever offered on an automobile. For 1962, Oldsmobile bolted this to their alloy, "Rockette" 215-cubic inch V-8 they first introduced on their new-for-1961, "F-85" compact. 

At about the same time, Chevrolet also introduced a turbo on a version of their rear-engine, air-cooled, flat-six Corvair. Depending on what you read, pundits of both claim their turbo came first. Does it really matter given they were both GM developments? 

At the risk of oversimplification, a turbocharger is a compressor driven by an engine's exhaust that forces compressed air into an engine to improve its performance. A "super" charger does essentially the same thing but it differs from a turbo in that it's driven by a pully on the engine. Turbocharging was nothing new by the early 1960's, they had been used on gas and diesel industrial engines for years prior, but the Oldsmobile Jetfire and Chevrolet Corsair where the first mass produced cars to use them. 

And to have one to say nothing of two GM products feature them at the same time speaks to how forward thinking GM was in the early 1960's. They weren't perfect, though. In fact, far from it. Especially our Jetfire Turbo here that required an ethanol and distilled water mixture to prevent pre-ignition in the 10.5:1, high-compression 215 engine. Many a Jetfire owner would neglect to fill the under-the-hood reservoir with the special go-fast juice thus reducing the engine's performance. Purportedly, a turbocharged 215 V-8 made some 215-horsepower (gross rated) compared to just 155 for a non-turbo 215. 

Perhaps the seller of this hunk of metal took a couple of big swigs of that special "Turbo Rocket Fuel". How else to explain why they would think anyone would pay $600 for this? Hey, it's five o'clock somewhere, right? 

To build this, GM had help from the Garret Corporation, that had considerable experience in building turbochargers for industrial applications.  Chevrolet got their schooling on turbos from the Thompson-Ramo-Wooldrige corporation that became known as TRW in 1965. 

Oldsmobile had other challenges with the 215 other than its wonky turbo. Being made of aluminum, the engine had cooling issues because they couldn't determine, at first, which type of coolant was best. Use of certain coolant clogged cooling passages in the engine leading to overheating and head gasket failure. 

While Chevrolet soldiered on with the Corvair turbo through 1969, Oldsmobile pulled the plug on the Jetfire Turbo Rocket after 1963 with just 9,617 ever made making today's Facebook Marketplace discovery quite rare. 

On a bright note, Buick used the 215 Olds engine as a blueprint of sorts to create it's 90-degree, iron block and head V-6 known at first as the Buick "Fireball". That engine over the years receiving a number of refinements and innovations eventually becoming the famous GM "3800" series of engines. 

 

By the way, no. I didn't search for this but based on Facebook Marketplace's algorithms of my past searches, it has determined that I need this. Well, I'm always on the hunt for things that will give my 1977 Corvette more power...could this be just what the doctor ordered? There's nothing in the ad that says the special turbo cocktail comes with it, though. Cheers. 

 

1983 Dodge Rampage - City Slicker

The most famous and, dare I say, seminal of Chrysler K-cars was their game changing mini-van introduced in 1983. Just-like-that, breeding Boomers had their family truckster and the rest is history.  On the other side of the sales success spectrum were Chrysler's K-car based, 1982-1984 "coupe utilities"; Plymouth called theirs "Scamp" (1983 only) and Dodge called theirs "Rampage". Our Facebook Marketplace 1983 Rampage here hails from bucolic Greenville, Pennsylvania nestled on the Ohio-P.A. border roughly an hour northwest of Pittsburgh and 90-minutes southeast of Cleveland. Purportedly all of 17,000-miles on it's forty-year-old analog ticker. Asking price is negotiable. 

If I recall correctly, I believe my knee-jerk reaction to these things when I first saw one back in the day was something along the lines of, "what the f--k is that?" Please understand that I grew up in a bedroom community of New York City where such things like this were about as common as a seeing a cow in a supermarket. Well, a fully assembled, alive and breathing cow and not one or several already dismantled and ready for grilling. If I didn't "get", understand or appreciate the virtues of pickup trucks or anything construed as midwestern, again, back then, highly unusual to see a pickup used as a daily conveyance where I come from, to say nothing of how dazed and confused I was regarding Chevrolet El Caminos\GMC Sprints and Ford Rancheros, imagine how I felt about these things. 

All I saw was a K-car pretending to be an El Camino. Nothing more and probably a whole lot less. Well, it was considerably less big than an El Camino or Sprint of the era; Ford got out of the Ranchero business after 1978 although they did commission a number of Fairmont's for custom conversion to  "pickup cars" from 1979-1982. Wannabee city-slicker me not seeing these things for what they were really trying to be - an affordable, efficient, and quite practical utility vehicle with a dash of sporty panache. 

Based on the bones of the newly freshened for 1982 Dodge Omni O24 Chrysler dubbed, "Charger", our Rampage here uses the Charger's comely front end with a unique utility box aft of what would be the Charger's center-post or B-pillar. The unit-body riding on a slightly elongated Charger chassis with the Charger's front coil struts and an exclusive leaf spring\shock absorber rear suspension. With a tubular rear axle, Chrysler claimed a 1,000-pound payload capacity and 750-pound towing capacity. This just in - you ain't towing the camper with this thing. 

Propulsion was provided by a Chrysler-built, 2.2-liter, overhead-valve, inline-four-cylinder engine making 84-horsepower. Sorry, no pictures of that autobahn scourge in the ad. Our red head here has Chrysler's slushy but rugged, three-speed A413 transmission derived from the Volkswagen A404 box Chrysler used in the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon going back to 1978. Four- and five-speed manuals were also available. 

Although weighing just 2,400-pounds, performance was best described as leisurely to the tune of zero-to-sixty in 16-seconds. Whoa. Most vehicles today can do the quarter-mile in 16-seconds or less. Then again, it was the early '80's, most everything was grossly underpowered. Chrysler claimed 25-mph city, 40-highway. Your mileage may vary, see dealer for details. 

Too small for pickup truck aficionados and not, I guess, bizarre enough for fans of the VW Rabbit based coupe utility or Subaru Brats of the day, despite high critical praise from auto scribes, Chrysler moved just over 37,000 Rampages in just three model years of production. Meaning, our little front-wheel-driving coupe utility here is quite rare and unique. 

Despite my misgivings at first, I've actually always thought these things quite cool looking. And if I had the room and\or need for something wholly practical and not wanting to spring for an SUV or "real" pickup, this little Rampage here might be the ticket for me. I'm not quite there yet, I don't know if I ever will be to be quite honest, but it's nice to see how much my taste in things as evolved from the cloistered myopia of my youth where it seemed anything remotely construed as midwestern was verboten. 

 

1999 Acura RL - Far Off The Pace It Set

This is a 1999 Acura 3.5RL

Japan renegotiated their trade limitation agreements with the United States in the early 1980's that not only enabled them to export more cars for sale here but opened the door for them to import another type of vehicle class entirely - luxury cars. Of course, what they would sell as a luxury car in the U.S. had nothing in common with the then current domestic axiom, albeit one that was evolving, but rather an emulation of the best of what Germany had to offer. 

Honda introduced their Legend sedan in the U.S, under their newly minted "Acura" moniker, for model year 1986 and, not surprisingly, especially considering they were priced considerably less than the cost of a Mercedes-Benz and other pricey German makes cost then, it was a huge sales success. They also sold a luxury version of their Civic they called "Integra"; a Legend coupe followed in 1987. Seemingly overnight, the notion of a Japanese automaker going bumper to bumper with haughty German makes and models wasn't such a, excuse the pun, "foreign" concept. Although by 1986, Honda had long entrenched itself in this country as a purveyor of high-quality transportation conveyances. Given that, it wasn't such a stretch to believe they could pull off what they did so successfully. 

Allegedly, "Acura" stems from the Latin term, "acu" which refers to something done with acute precession.

The first two-generations of the Acura Legend were, warning, another pun incoming, legend. Almost too much so as much to the dismay of Honda executives, many a Legend owner referred to their cars as "Legends" and not "Acura's". Seems fairly inconsequential now, but keep in mind at the time, "Acura" was a fledging nameplate Honda was attempting to carve out a niche if not identity for. Spurred or encouraged by Honda's success, Toyota and Nissan introduced luxury marquees in 1989 doing the Acura brand no favors either. As for GM and Ford, well, they may have just laid there like proverbial slugs as their entire world was upheaved right in front of their headlights. 

 

So, when it came time to introduce a third generation of the Legend, Honda took a page from European brand Germans and began using an alphanumeric naming scheme and, thus, for 1997, the "Legend" was rechristened "3.5RL". "RL" purportedly for "road luxury". To add insult to injury, at least styling wise, the new RL was not only no second-generation Legend, it also came only in four-door guise. 

Acura, a division of Honda, was first introduced in the United States in 1986. 

Although one of these bland looking if not homely sedans could suck the doors off any Cadillac or Lincoln of the vintage, we can't say the same about how it fared versus a comparable Lexus (Toyota) or Infiniti (Nissan). Although, in fairness, the rear-wheel-drive Lexus' and Infiniti's range topping models were different in concept and execution from the front-wheel-drive Acura 3.5RL. Begs the question, how come Honda never come with a V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive sedan like Toyota and Nissan did? Because they never created one for their home market they could base one on. And the cost to build one from scratch would have been cost prohibitive, especially one that was built specifically for export. 

Subsequently, sales of the slab-sided, wallowing, relatively underpowered 3.5RL cratered in comparison to the second-generation Legend. While a still far superior automobile to anything GM or Ford was producing at the time, Daimler's influence on Chrysler, which it acquired in 1998, didn't really come into play until 2004, Honda found itself far behind the Asian luxury-car import race it all but started in this country. Subsequent updates to the RL, while much improved, didn't fare much better nor improve upon Acura's literal pole position in the marketplace. At least in comparison to Lexus, in particular, and Infiniti. 

The Acura 3.5RL replaced the Legend in Acrua's lineup starting in 1996.

What, then, to make of this 1999 3.5RL I found for sale on Facebook Marketplace recently with a scant 111,000-miles on its ticker with a more than fair, at least on paper, asking price of $4,500? If you can look past it's oh-so-'90's Asian motif and see it for what it is, that being a super well built, bank-vault solid driver that will run for at least another 100 or 200K, for someone looking for a stalwart commuter for not a lot of money, they'd be hard pressed to do better these days. Just don't try and fool yourself into thinking you're driving anything more than that. 

1988 Cadillac Coupe deVille - Just Another Old '80's Car

Bill Cosby, of all people, is given credit for coining the phrase, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody". I don't think Cadillac got that memo when they drew up their 1985-1988 "full-size", front-wheel-drive models that were supposed to be just what every young urban professional and traditional Cadillac buyer wanted. Coupe deVille's like this with the fake wires and optional and expensive padded landau top are especially heinous. I found this 1988 for sale on Facebook Marketplace recently for sale near my office with an asking price of $4,500 and a mere 111,000-miles on its 35-year-old digital ticker. Reasonable, no? I guess. Although there's a lot more here than just a sensibly priced old car in what appears to be nice shape.  

General Motors, Cadillac in particular, found itself reacting to trends rather than dictating them in the 1980's and the results of their efforts were dubious. Based on sales and critical acclaim for their first downsized models in the 1970's including the GM X-body based (Chevrolet Nova) 1975-1979 Seville, 1977 deVille and Fleetwood, and 1979 Eldorado, one could construe GM had a clear and concise plan on what to they were doing and a future of smaller Cadillac's would be chock full of blue skies and sunshine. Then came the 1980's and the "bustle back" 1980 Seville, the Oldsmobile Diesels, the V8-6-4, HT4100, Buick V-6's in deVilles, the Cimmaron and the shrunken-head 1986 Eldorado. These square, soulless, front-wheel-drive sedans, introduced in 1985, just another 1980's day at the office for an automobile brand that once boasted it was, "The Standard of the World". 

Frankly, and perhaps in retrospect this is only true, it wasn't so much that General Motors went too far in downsizing and moved their flag ship model to front-wheel-drive. What made these cars so off-putting was their styling; or lack thereof. They're like people who were overweight who still wear the clothes they wore before they went on a massive crash diet. In fairness, their interiors were as cavernous as Cadillac's of yore, perhaps even more so, and they could accelerate, handle and brake with an aplomb no Cadillac before them ever did or could. Especially these 1988's with the redesigned for 1988, 4.5-liter V-8 replacing the deadly in more ways than one, "HT4100". I've driven these cars and have always been impressed. Too bad they're so damn ugly. Ultimately, their performance prowess fell on deaf ears and wallets as the customers they sought flocked to the tonier and far more expensive import makes and models these cars were an attempt to emulate. Their traditional buyers were like, "that's not a Cadillac". 

Back in the day, a significant part of what made a "Cadillac a Cadillac" was not only a gaggle of luxury accoutrements and baubles and bits exclusive to the brand but their styling. There was something special about the "look" of Cadillac even if they were no better than a Buick or even a Chevrolet. Buick and Oldsmobile built a semi-handsome coupe on the smaller version of the chassis they built all these Cadillac's on, but these cars are no more, or less, than their four-door versions with two less doors. Buick's two-door Electra and Oldsmobile's two-door 98, built on the same chassis this car is, suffer from the same goofy proportions as these haughty Cadillac coupes do. 

The passage of time is a great equalizer and it also creates vacuums, as such, what is this car all these years later other than just another "old '80's car"? The poster of the ad claims it's a classic - this just in, based on my definition of "classic", which is broad and generous, it's not. Then again, in fairness, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, could the same be said as to what makes a classic car a classic car? 

 

Cub Cadet 2150 - Me and "My Cubbie"

Back in the spring of 2017, both of my boys decided to spend the then upcoming summer down at their respective colleges. So I wouldn't be spending the lion's share of my weekend time and energy mowing my modest third of an acre, I bought this Cub Cadet figuring buying it would be far less than paying a landscaper to cut my grass every week for 8-1/2 to 9-months. Good idea and a prudent use of funds, right? Only in hindsight do I see the warning signs that this thing had disaster written all over it from the get-go. 

First off, when I asked the guy I bought it from how old it was he said it was only ten-years old; it was more like twenty. During the first summer I had it the head gasket went and on occasion the starter solenoid wouldn't engage the pinion to crank the engine. $200 for a guy to replace the head gasket and a gentle tap with a hammer on the starter to get it to work and all was well. With a forty-two inch deck, I was able to knock my entire lawn down start-to-finish in less than fifteen-minutes; with my self-propelled, 21-inch walk-behind it was closer to an hour. That, as we say, was what I was talking about. 

During subsequent summers I had myriad issues with the mowing deck and the powered-takeoff-switch (PTO) that engages the mowing blades via an electric clutch; talk about over-engineering. I also eventually  replaced the failing starter motor. All in, though, I was still way ahead of the game. Financially at least although "time is money". 

During my fourth summer with what I affectionately referred to as "my Cubbie" (when it was working), one by one, the original and dry rotted tires stopped holding air and because replacing the tires (and rims they're on) was cost prohibitive, I put tubes in the tires. If you've ever wrestled with replacing a tube in a bicycle tire or putting one in a wheel barrow tire, you know what fun that can be. Best was, I overinflated the tubes and they eventually blew out. Rinse and repeat. 

My problems with this circa 1995 Cub Cadet weren't limited to its age and things wearing out  - my semi-carelessness at times was to blame as well. Over the years my lawn has sunk considerably leaving the top edge of the cast-iron water meter housing in the middle of my front yard sticking up like a proverbial middle finger. Once or twice I did the blades no favors as I ran the thing over it slicing a good chunk off the housing. Once, twice or three times I crashed directly into it. Doing so not only bent the deck but the the super heavy, thick and expensive to replace blades that struck said bent deck. To say I clobbered the damn thing is an understatement. This is a replacement meter housing replaced at no cost to me by the city. 

The big problem then became the very pricy belt that drove the mowing deck blades off the electric clutch on the engine. Crashing into the water meter housing bent the deck so badly it knocked the pully alignment off kilter and the belt would come off and get shredded. That happened twice at fifty-bucks a shot. It happened for the third time late last fall at the end of the mowing season and it was then I decided it was time to push "my Cubbie" into Lake Erie. Metaphorically, of course. 

Hope springing eternal, this past April I thought I'd give it the old college try again seeing how when the belt would shred, I deduced it was only when I had the deck lower than the highest setting. Fine. My lawn always looks more lush taller anyway. Thing was, the starter I replaced the original with started failing, the tube I put in the left rear tire had blown out over the winter and the right-side hinge on the hood broke off. Enough was enough. "My Cubbie" had to go. First things first, though, I had to find a replacement. 

Back when I found the Cub Cadet, Facebook Marketplace was in its infancy and Craigslist, where I found it, was the go-to for finding cheap stuff you used to find at garage sales. Marketplace has since long usurped CL and it didn't take me five minutes to find this 38-inch, 17.5-horsepower, 2011 Craftsman with an asking price of $750. Perhaps more than I wanted to spend but you do get what you pay for. That and inflation has jacked the price up on everything. Have you seen the price of what these go for new these days? This would run you about $2,200 and that's not including the "bagger system" that'll run you nearly $400. Insanity. BTW, I never even looked at Craigslist.

My wife and I took the 40-minute or so drive south to look it over and were pleasantly surprised. It was relatively clean and didn't have any of the rolled-over, exploded and burned zest of the Cub Cadet. However, on my test drive or mow on the guy's lawn, the engine started surging. Me being gun shy after the Cub Cadet, at first I wanted out of there ASAP. The guy swore it was the first time it ever did that and he seemed particularly dismayed since he had just put a new carburetor on the engine. My wife  believed him and she read my mind that I didn't think the surging was a big deal but I didn't want the thing at $750. She pounced asking him if he was willing to part with it for less and he asked sheepishly, "four-hundred?". Sold. He even dropped it off at my house. Such a deal.  

I listed the Cub Cadet for sale on Marketplace for $150 and the next day a guy picked it up (above) no questions asked. Apparently, "Cub Cadet" really means something to some people. Especially "real" Cub Cadet garden/lawn tractors like mine and not the badge jobs YTD or MTD sold as "Cub Cadets" after Cub Cadet sold the naming rights to them for small tractors. John Deere did the same thing. Side note, new John Deere ride-on mowers now come with plastic hoods and their steel bodies are flimsy.  Sad. 

Best was, a simple adjustment on the carburetor cured this thing of any and all engine surging issues. Net out of pocket, with the sale of the Cub Cadet, was $250.  And I would have had to put at least that much money into the Cub Cadet this year to get it going. It's going to be a pleasant summer of mowing. 

In hindsight, I shouldn't have bought "my Cubbie" in the first place, but if you don't have any regrets in life, have you really lived?