My "speaking of Cars" articles

“Speaking of Cars” articles

Back in late 1999, while living in Friday Harbor Washington, which is on an island that is only accessible by air, boat or ferry , After I got there, I was involved in a car club called the San Juan Cruisers. The person who started the club was a guy named Charlie Settles. I got to know him quite well. He became kind of a local hero to a lot of the local kids. In September of 1999, he died in an accident where he inhaled some burning industrial cleaner and destroyed his lungs. A few years later, I was working nights at my bowling alley, when I thought about Charlie and his effect on the community. I decided to write an article about him and turn it in to the local weekly newspaper. I did, and they printed it. It got a lot of feedback from people who recalled Charlie. The newspaper asked if I wanted to write anything else for them, so I dreamed up a monthly column called “Speaking of Cars”. The good part of this was that after I wrote the articles, then they would have them edited. That made me look better. The bad part was the lack of response to my opinions. I did this for a few months, then it just kind of ran out of gas with the paper. Somehow, someone with an online car magazine must have seen some of my articles and asked if they could use them. I said yes, and they let me post a new article about once or twice a month. Eventually, I just kind of quit writing these. I guess I just kind of ran out of ideas. As you may see, these were all written in about 2002 and 2003, so they were either about cars of that era, or of course, old cars.

Files coming soon.

Charlie Settles

The greatest “Car Guy” I ever met

Anyone who knows me at all knows I’m a car person. I’m obviously interested in cars, but not always the best when it comes to working with other people. Well, I’m here to tell you about a fellow car person, who was probably the finest citizen of this community I ever met. This amazing person was Charlie Settles. He was a friend to all. He was the force in starting the San Juan Cruisers, of which I have been a member since I moved here in 1996, and the founder of the Friday Harbor High School Drag Race Team.

Charlie didn’t ask around town if any kids were interested in drag racing or even cars. Instead Charlie would see a young man or woman that looked like they had nothing promising to do, and tell them he had something for them to do. He took these kids around with him and taught them about cars. He got them interested enough to go out and scrounge around for an old car to make into a drag car. They went on trips to the racetrack in Mission B. C. They went on trips to recycle aluminum to get money to support the team. They went on trips to the mainland just to have fun. Charlie did all this without any pay from anyone. Nearly every weekend I would see Charlie on the ferry with a group of these kids going to somewhere or other. The kids who he worked with, for the most part, stayed out of trouble while he was involved with them. I can remember many times, going by the old shop building at the high school and seeing the door open. I would stop in to see what Charlie and his group was doing. They might have been working on the ElCamino race car, or any of the kid’s cars, or something totally unrelated. But they were always having a good time.

Things weren’t always easy. As time went on, the high school decided they did not want the affiliation with the Drag Race Club. They also lost the use of the high school shop building. But the loss that we couldn’t get over was the tragic loss of Charlie. In a terrible accident, a fire took Charlie from us. I remember the memorial service; nearly the whole town was there. I can’t remember ever going to a more touching service.

Cecil Dent stepped up to help with the Drag Racing team, and did a admirable job of trying to hold it together for a few years, But I don’t believe Cecil, or myself, or anyone I’ve ever met, could fill the shoes that Charlie left for us in this community. Nobody I know would be able to find the time for these kids he did. He worked hard all day, but every evening and weekend was given to the kids of this community.

My greatest hope is that the “car people” and the rest of this community will always remember Charlie. I only knew him for a short time, but I cannot tell you how much respect I have for him and his memory. Let’s none of us ever forget Charlie Settles.

In Memoriam, Charlie Settles 01/25/1949-09/26/1999

Files coming soon.

Speaking of Cars

Speaking Of Cars

I have always been interested in cars. The first car I remember my folks having when I was young was a ’49 ford. I remember the seat covers that my dad installed, I remember the flathead 6 and the overdrive. I guess I was about 3 or 4 years old. I remember the next car my folks had much more vividly. It was a ’53 Studebaker 2-door, known now as a lowboy styled by famous designer Raymond Lowey. I really remember that car. In about 1959 it started to have front end problems, it would shimmy badly and the driver would have to push the brakes and turn the wheel to stop the problem. I’m not sure why I remember this, but I looked at the operation of the front end to see how it worked just to try to understand why it did this. I was about 5 or 6 at the time. When I got a little older all I wanted to read were car magazines. All my friends were reading Mad magazine or comics. I recall at about the age of 10 on being excited as September rolled around each fall. That’s when the new cars were released. I would be in town with my friends and I’d make them go with me to check out the new cars. I’d pick up all the sales pamphlets and take them home. All the cars that impressed me were seen hanging on the walls of my room for the model year.

Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to get across is that I fit into a category of people with a less than healthy interest in our basic transportation. Most people in the world find their car to be nothing more than their best choice of transportation until it requires replacement. Car people, of which I am one, find the car to be much more than that. When I read, which is a fair amount, I read about the people who molded the automotive industry. Most people would be bored to tears, but I scour the bookstores and the Internet trying to find these books to fill my need to learn as much as possible about cars and the development of the industry. Most people won’t understand this fixation with a mechanical device. As I said, most drivers find that a car that is good quality, economical, stylish and ergonomically correct is the perfect car. A car person is much different. The car is an extension of his personality. As an example, I know I would be to embarrassed to drive a car that is less than what that car is supposed to represent. A convertible must be flashy, a muscle car must look and sound like one, a sports car must look like it’s ready to race. I don’t mind driving a car that needs to be restored, as long as it’s original. I had a Datsun 240-Z a while back. It was starting to rust, needed paint and a restoration, but was a very collectable and sought after car. I showed the car and drove it in a few rallys. It had “slot mag” wheels and a spoiler on the back. Both items were dealer installed when new. If, for instance, the car had an aftermarket sunroof or fender flares, which are quite common modifications on these cars. I probably would not have even driven it. That is a difficult thing to explain to people.

When you go to most car shows, the cars that are on display are cars people drive, not just show. Most are like mine, they look good, unless you really get close, then you see the imperfections. To people who show cars, it’s the surface, the first impression that is the most important. As I said, their car is an extension of their personality. So just being seen in your car that you are proud of is important to you. What possible purpose does driving a convertible provide, other than flash? The cars of the 50s and 60s made the most of this. What driver really needed a “hardtop”, a “continental kit” or wide white wall tires? Nobody really needed these things to get from point a to point b, they needed these things to get there in style and be seen in a car with these things.

In the teens and 20s, the reason a customer would buy a new vehicle had to do with the engineering advancements of a new car. In the 20s and 30s General Motors figured out that it was less expensive to change the styling of a car from year to year than it was to re-engineer the mechanics. Alfred Sloan, long time president of General Motors was first to see enough importance in this idea that he hired a body designer from California named Harley Earl, you may have seen his likeness in recent Buick adds, to head up an until then non-existent styling dept. Alfred Sloan felt that it was important that all cars changed styling each year, and that the average customer should find his car to be obsolete every three years. This was most apparent during the 50s and 60s. This styling change, if nothing else, made the manufacturers very competitive. Also many styling cues came from this. Tailfins, convertibles, hardtops, dagmars (bumper extensions) and excessive chrome trim all came out of this era.

I believe, that a lot of the interest that I have in cars came from the yearly cycle of styling change. I recall when from 100 ft. away, I could tell the year, make and model of most cars. I still can with older cars. The current cars not only look rather similar, but may not have a change in styling for 10 or 15 years or more. The Honda’s and Subaru’s of today may be the finest quality and most sensible cars on the road. But to a car person, they don’t exude the necessary flash. The car person would usually prefer a Mustang or Miata or something that makes less sense, but provides the wanted effect.

The articles I will write over the next weeks will, I hope, help people to see my views on automobiles from a car person’s point. I hope we both learn something, and I can keep you interested. I would love to hear responses to my articles. Thanks, Bruce Nelson.

Files coming soon.

Look at that Important Car

Boy, did you see that important car?

Over the last number of weeks, I’ve been driving around in a 1950 Ford that I recently picked up from a collector in Montana. Even though I had a car just about like this one about 20 years ago, I am surprised by how many people tell me about their experiences with a “shoebox Ford” in the past. It’s not only a great car to drive, but also a real conversation piece. When someone comes up to me they seem to always describe the car as “beautiful” or “classic” or some other superlative, even though it is in need of a full restoration. This got me thinking of the terms I might use when I see a car that catches my eye. I’m sure if you were to ask my wife, she could tell you some examples. But the one I don’t use often enough is important. Over the last 100 or so years since the automobile has arrived on the scene, many cars have been, more than others, important.

I guess that the description of an important car would be one that has had an impact on the auto buying public or the auto industry in general. The undisputed most important car of all time would have to be the Ford model T. This was the car that put the option of automobile ownership into the reach of the common man, and even more importantly, the farmer. It has been said that before the model T, the average person never traveled further than 20 miles from where he was born in his or her entire life. That is so hard to imagine today. But Henry Ford grew up on a farm and hated the thought of being tied down to it. So his idea was to build a car that 1: any person with an income could afford and 2: by raising the average wage in the entire country, expanding the market for his car. In the early 20s there were aprox. 260 auto manufacturers in the world, but well over 50% of the cars sold were model Ts.

Of course, this was not the only important car. There have been many. How did cars like the ’55 Chevy with its new small block V-8 change things? How about the Ford Mustang, or the Pontiac GTO. All these cars from a more modern era changed the market forever. In 2000, a group of automotive writers from around the world got together to select the 100 most important cars and then the 5 most important. The final 5 were #5 the Porsche 911, #4 the Citroen DS, #3 the Volkswagen Bug, #2 the Mini and #1 the model T.

My 1950 Ford, which was a new model in 1949, was an important car as it was a radical change for Ford and a modern design for the entire industry. Most of the design features made it to the rest of the market in a short time. Even today, what new cars will be considered important, innovative cars in the future? How about the Ford explorer? It was the first medium sized luxury SUV. Now how many vehicles have moved in to compete with it? How about the Chrysler minivan? How many more can you think of?

So the next time you see a car show, or just a caravan of old cars going down the road, instead of just thinking how beautiful a particular car is, think of how important it may have been. Bruce.

Files coming soon.

This one is going to be a classic

This ones goin’ to be a classic

I have found over the years that anything that is “destined to be a classic” won’t be. At least that is the case in the automotive collectors market. Back in 1976, Cadillac announced the last of the American convertibles. It sold for about $17,000 new, although most dealers marked up this “sure classic” by a few thousand. A few years ago some of these started to surface with few, if any miles on them. Most were sold for between $12,000 and $17,000. To fetch this price, these had to have been stored indoors for 25 years. A great investment, considering inflation and all. Meanwhile during the 60s Ford decided to compete with the Corvette. They brought out the Cobra. A small sports car imported from the A.C. Company in England with a selection of ford V-8s. The final series with 427s. These cars were difficult to sell when new, nobody seemed to want them even for the price of aprox. $6,000. They have become the yardstick against which collector car prices are judged. Today they bring from $200,000 for a small motor, to close to $4,000,000 for a 427 coupe. I don’t think the salesman at the Ford dealer said they were destined to be a classic. Likewise, when I was younger, and in high school, my dad worked at a Chrysler/Plymouth dealer in Bellingham. I remember visiting him after school and looking at the 2 AAR cuda’s and 1 hemi cuda they couldn’t seem to give away. They ended getting less than they paid for all these now extremely valuable cars.

It seems that classic or collectable cars fall into 3 categories. 1: Rare. These are very limited production cars. Often they are so limited that they have been tracked for years as to their whereabouts. An example is a 1966 Cobra coupe that was missing. It surfaced a couple of years ago when the older woman owner died. The car sold for about $4,000,000 un-restored. The value of these is obvious due to supply and demand. 2: Milestone. These are often odd or the first of a new idea or series. An example of this is a 1966 Olds Toranado. It was the first modern design of a front wheel drive American car. 3: Desirable. This is a car that may not be rare, but most people would like to have one. A 1966 Mustang is an example of this. It is not rare, and was a re-bodied falcon. But how many red blooded Americans wouldn’t want one. Often these categories will be mixed. A 1964 GTO is both a milestone car as the first muscle car, and desirable.

Often a car that you may never think anyone would want becomes desirable. Both the Gremlin and the Pacer are sought after by collectors. One of the latest hot commodities is the station wagon. Nearly all pre 1973 wagons are beginning to be collected. Pre 1952 woodies (real wood) are extremely valuable today. The other type of car everyone seems to want is muscle cars. These cars made between 1964 and 1972 are the nostalgia cars that the baby boomers remember from their youth. The rule of thumb is that cars that didn’t sell well but were very good performing will go up in value. Also car styling is an interesting topic. It is a mystery why some styling works and some doesn’t. They all look good when they are new, but 10 years later, some look great, some just look old. Anyway, if I could tell all the cars that will go up in value, I’d be well to do, so I guess I don’t know everything. Look out for 1984-1986 Mustang SVO and 1988 Pontiac Fiero values in the future. Those are a couple of my picks that can be had cheaply now.

Files coming soon.

The corvair

Safer now at any speed

I was at a car show the other day looking at a nice 1966 Corvair with a nicely installed small block where the back seat used to be. I’ve owned a number of Corvairs over the years, so when I see a car like this one, I check it out. The other people milling around this car were talking about how great Corvairs were, and how awful it was that Ralph Nader had had killed such a wonderful car. I am not a fan of Ralph Nader or whatever political party he’s affiliated with at this time, but here’s where I’d like to put in my 2 cents worth.

I read “unsafe at any speed” while I was in high school back in about 1970. I remember thinking it was interesting reading, but it wasn’t until I happened into a copy at a used book store and read it again, that it really hit me that this book may have hurt the Corvair, but hit the nail on the head when it comes to automotive safety. If you have never read this book, I would recommend it. Very little of the book is about the handling aspects of the Corvair. In fact the problems with the handling was not nearly as important to the story as was the fact that GM knew about the problem and also knew about a relatively inexpensive fix for it. The small cost to repair the problem was weighed against the cost of the consequences and the problem wasn’t repaired until 1964. This is what killed the Corvair, along with the fact that the Corvair was the first mass produced rear engined American car and that made it somewhat different when it comes to tire inflation, handling, general driving, and the fan belt issues (any Corvair owners know about this).

What really interested me when I re-read this book was that it was written in 1966. Like I said only a small part of the book is about the Corvair. The book is about the manufacturers total disregard for safety of the passengers of their cars and the pedestrians that may somehow come into contact with a car. At the time I re-read this book, I own a 1966 Pontiac Catalina Convertible, a 1971 Pontiac LeMans and a 1994 Pontiac Sunbird Convertible. As Nader talks about the items that he felt needed to be changed to make the car safer, it was interesting to me to look at the vehicles I own, and see the differences that had taken place in that period of time, especially from the 1966 to the 1971. During these few short years nearly every safety item that Nader discussed in the book were incorporated into the design of the later car. Just to name a few, fully padded dash, all knobs out of harms way, different shape knobs for lights and wipers, collapsible steering column, hazard lights, side marker lights, dual master cylinder, shoulder harnesses, locking seat backs and many more items than I care to list. Also mentioned in the book were such things as anti lock brakes and air bags, both of which were under development in the ‘60s.

As I said before, I am not a fan of Mr. Nader. In fact I’d probably vote for a Corvair for president before him. But what he did for the safety of the automobile was very important to us all, he got the ball rolling. No longer would the manufactures tell us we would live with as for safety, they would be required to make things realistic. Believe me, I find the cars of the 40s, 50s and 60s to be better looking and a lot more interesting than the stuff made after that, safety must be an important issue to all of us. People look at the huge old cars of the 50s and 60s and remark about how safe they must have been. Awhile back, I was only a few cars back from a terrible accident between an old Chrysler from the 60s and an almost new Geo Metro. The Metro driver came out better, the passenger compartment was still intact even though the front end was almost wiped off the car. The Chrysler driver couldn’t get out because of the damage to the car.

Sure, there was a time during this safety transition from about 1973 until the early 80s when the styling of cars suffered immensely due the safety features they had to add. But now it’s just taken for granted that is how cars look. How little time it has taken us to get used to cars with no chrome, no bumpers as we knew them in the old days and “jelly bean” styling.

I love the styling of the old cars, the personality, the flash, the ridicules ideas, but when I send my wife or kids out on the road in their new cars, I often think to myself, Thanks Ralph. I’m sure the Corvair folks won’t agree.

Evolution of Devolution

Evolution or Devolution

Would you not think, that as time travels on, that the auto industry would evolve? After all, who doesn’t look back at the ’55 thru ’57 Ford Thunderbirds and wonder, what the heck were these guys thinking, who in there right mind would change the styling of these cute, sporty 2-seater sports cars into a hardtop 4-seater about twice the size. The fact is, the bean counters at Ford decided that these cars weren’t selling at a high enough volume. They figured that by doubling the seating they would double the sales. They were wrong. The 1958 4-seater sold about 5 times as many cars as the year before.

Now zip forward about 45 years. After Ford dropped the Thunderbird in 1997 because of poor sales, it was resurrected in 2001 as a cute 2-seat convertible, with the famous “port hole” hardtop and styling that made it look like a modern adaptation of the ’56 T-bird. It was just announced recently that this new Thunderbird will be discontinued after 2004. The problem, slow sales of a 2-seater. This time, I don’t see a replacement larger version. Too bad, I thought this was a great example of retro styling.

This is not the only example of this, although it is the most well known. Another case of a great car gone bad was the famous 240-Z Datsun of the early ‘70s. It was released as a light, powerful, well designed sports car. It had very few options available and was unbelievably cheap. These cars are considered by collectors to be one of the only Japanese cars to ever be collectable. After 5 years it grew in weight and size, was available as a 4-seater, and because of the changing EPA regulations much less powerful. This direction continued until the early ‘90s when the final 300-ZX came out. It was still a little too late. Even though the last series 300-ZX was a very well designed and powerful car, it didn’t sell well and was discontinued. Again zip forward to the present day. Nissan, (what Datsuns really were) has recently released the 350-Z. Much like the Thunderbird, it is a very well executed, somewhat retro, 2-seat, all out sports car. Also like the 240-Z you might have to wait a long time to actually get your hands on one.

Basically, the same thing happened to the Mazda RX-7. It came out as a small, 2-seat, fast sports car. The second generation was a larger 4-seat car with ho-hum styling. Like the Nissan, in the early ‘90s it was replaced with one of the best looking and fastest sports cars to ever come out of Japan. Also like the Nissan, it sold so poorly that it only lasted a few years on the American market. This year Mazda released the RX-8. Like the RX cars of the past, it has a rotary engine and is sold as a sports car. The real difference is that it is a 4-seat, 4-door. It will be interesting to me to see which of these sells the best over the next few years. Maybe the bean counters have more clout at Mazda than do the engineers. After all, Mazda brought us the Miata, the return of the true sports car. Nobody has caught them yet, as hard as they may try.

So after all this, are you as confused as I am about 2-seat cars? I guess the market is so small for these that some work and some don’t. The Corvette always sells quite well, so does the above-mentioned Miata. Everyone seems to think that a sports car is a great idea, but few people actually find them practical. The Miata works because of the price and the Corvette sells because of the heritage, But why doesn’t the T-Bird sell well enough for Ford to continue with it, or is the number of units of a certain model just set so high a car like that just won’t make it in the market today. Anyway, I hope to be able to drive all these in the next short time, Maybe that will clear things up. Maybe I’ll just have a lot of fun. Bruce.

The past 30 years

When did this all change?

In the last 30 years that I’ve been interested in collectable cars I’ve noticed some odd changes. First, did you ever notice the difference in the perceived value of old cars? A few years ago, if you saw an old car behind a barn in obvious state of disrepair, you would talk to the owner, tell them you were interested in the car, and usually get it for a fair price. This makes sense to me, because if the car was left in that condition, the owner had lost the interest to keep it and just had not disposed of it yet. I would be hard pressed to count the number of interesting cars I purchased that way over the years. Now, it seems that anyone who has an old scrap car in their yard, thinks it must be worth a lot.. This may have an effect on the hobby in general. Since anyone who has an old 65 Mustang in their driveway thinks it must be worth a lot. Often if a car like that has been left to sit, it means it is in poor condition, often with major rust problems, very bad interior, or accident damage. A car like this today, at today’s labor costs would probably cost more to restore than it would cost to buy a comparable car completely done. I think these people who want to sell these cars hear about the high prices very well restored cars bring and equate this value as meaning their car must be rare and so valuable. I guess as hobbyists who actually collects these cars, we see these, listen to what they want, chuckle under our breath, and look for the next interesting car, hoping to find the same kind of deals we did years ago. Look at what is for sale in publications like Hemmings and Old Car Trader. A 50s or 60s 4-door post that most collectors would not have hauled away a few years ago, now must be very sought after, at least if the asking price is any indication.

The second change I’ve noticed, and this has gone on for years, is the car hoarder. How many times have we seen an interesting car that should be restored, or even Hot-Rodded, sitting in a field? You walk up and talk to the owner who tells you it’s the next project on the list. Years later the car is still there, rotting away, being totally neglected. I think that it is a shame that a car that could be appreciated by someone just rots away in a field. Usually you can tell these people. They will have a number of cars sitting around, usually some of little value or interest, some that would be worth restoring. These people, I believe have good intentions, they just have bitten off more than they can chew, or the intent is good, they just find out what the cost will be, and never find the money or a work area. So these cars just sit. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen pictures in magazines and calendars showing these neglected cars.

I wish I knew the answer to either of these problems. Maybe most people out there don’t look at cars as I do, and other “car people” do. When I see an interesting car die a painful death it hurts me a little, kind of like I lost a friend. I guess as car people, we save what we can, find good homes for what we sell, and try to remember those who died.

Let's talk performance

Let’s talk performance

Anyone who is interested in cars or the car hobby knows what is important in a car. Performance! How does your new car perform? How do cars compare? Why buy one new car over another? How much performance do you need? I say that any car I enjoy driving must perform, but in many ways. I have a friend who I share an interest in cars with. Not only do we share an interest in cars, but also we share an interest in old Pontiacs. We seldom talk, but when we do it is always about cars. Our conversation almost always ends up in discussing the performance of cars. His only concern when it comes to performance is acceleration. It always comes down to the “quarter mile” time. It seems that that is the only kind of performance that is important to him. For years, this was this was a main concern when testing cars, but is that really what defines performance? A couple of years back, I had a Porsche 914 2-liter. Now this car was no slug, but it would have been no competition to the big V-8 cars of the 60s and early 70s in the “1320”. The Porsche, however, had handling that is seldom surpassed by any car, even today. Now, isn’t handling just as important to performance as acceleration? Especially, with the road racing crowd.

So maybe we should back up and take a look at what performance really means. There has been a lot of discussion about Motor Trend’s choice of the Toyota Prius as 2004 car of the year. This car doesn’t fit the mold as the car of the year as we know it. Usually, the car of the year is a performance car in the sense of power, handling or styling. The Toyota Prius, in my opinion does not excel in any of these categories. What it does do well, is it performs as a very good car for the general public to commute to work in. it gets great fuel economy, has better power than what would be expected from a motor of the size that it has. It is also roomy, for a car of its size. And is very possibly the future of design for fuel efficient and low emission vehicles. The combination of a small gas engine and an electric motor to supplement power, is the least costly way to a future with cleaner air and less need for dependence on foreign oil.

I own eight vehicles. Yes, that may seem a bit odd for a family with only two licensed drivers, but let me try my best to rationalize why anyone would own that many cars. Let’s start with my wife’s 1994 Pontiac Sunbird convertible. About four years ago we decided we needed a small economical car. This car made sense to me because it cost no more than any other small car, but had the fun option of the convertible top. My wife loves the car, and it has been a very economical and reliable car. I believe that this car performs well. It isn’t terribly fast. It doesn’t handle terribly well. But it gets great mileage, and if fun is a type of performance, then it has been a more than satisfactory car. I also have a 1990 Ford F-150 pick-up. It performs as good as needed as an inexpensive pick-up for the occasional hauling duties. The next one is my 1995 Chevy ¾ ton van. Since I do electronics repair and satellite service a van is the requirement. On our local ferry system, it costs double fare if your vehicle is over 7 ½ feet tall. Since I need to carry ladders on my roof, only the older vans will fit these criteria. So this van performs well for me, although that may not be important to anyone else. Okay, we are done with the boring vehicles. I also have a 1966 Pontiac Catalina convertible. The performance is lousy, but if styling and fun is important to you, this has been possibly the best car I’ve ever owned. I also own a 1971 Pontiac Lemans Sport with a warmed up 400, 400 turbo, headers, flowmaster exhaust, T/As and a twelve bolt posi. Okay, it’s performance is much more mainstream. It has excellent acceleration and handling for a daily driver. So I suppose it’s about as normal a performance car as I have. I also have a 1950 Ford sedan. Now for it’s day it was a very good car. It is the one car I own that doesn’t really do anything well. But it is an important piece of automotive history. Next is my 1982 Citroen Visa. It is actually a good handling, very economical, very comfortable car. Although it is a bit weird looking, it is a car you don’t often see, possible because it is one of the only ones in the western hemisphere. Good car, a little tough to get parts for locally. Next is my 1980 Datsun 280ZX tenth anniversary edition. Now, I’ve had a 240Z and I’ve always thought of these later Zs as being rather worthless. After the 240Z these cars got larger and turned into more of a luxury car than a sports car. I picked up this car recently with less than 1000 original miles on it. This sounds better than it is since it was never garaged and when it was driven, it was altogether to often into something. But as they say, “you can put on new paint, you can put in new upholstery, but you can’t put on low miles”. So it looks like any old 280ZX but drives like a brand new car. It has good acceleration, great handling, and good fuel economy and is a very comfortable car to drive. All those things considered, it performs very well as far as I’m concerned.

Now, it may seem weird to some people, but when I walk out the door in the morning I can drive the vehicle that fits my needs and mood for that day. Whether I need to build something at my bowling alley, install electronics, drive to Seattle, take the winding road to Roche Harbor or whatever the day brings. When we go to car shows, we also need to decide what to take. Do we drive the old car, the classic convertible, the muscle car, the sports car or the one that no matter where you go, it’s the only one there. It’s always a decision. I guess my point is that many cars perform well. All they need to do is be as good as their competitors at what they advertise they do. Accelerate fast, handle well, stop well, carry a load, stop well, get good fuel mileage, or any combination of those. Now that’s performance. Bruce.

the new gto

GTOs then and now

In one of the most interesting and fast moves I can recall in the auto industry, Pontiac has gone forward with the production of the new GTO. Any of us that remember the days of the GTOs from 1964 till 1974, remember those cars affectionately. Even if you ask a young person today what a GTO is they seem to know. As everyone probably knows already, the new GTO is a Holden 2-door from an Australian subsidiary of General Motors. Just meet US regulations and switch the driver to the other side. Not an expensive re-tooling, I’m sure that is why this was released so fast. Everyone who is a car nut got excited when they heard about the return of the famous GTO.

The story of the new GTO is pretty old at this time. What I question is the target market for this car. Back in 1964 some real serious car people at Pontiac experimented with putting a Bonneville 389 into a Tempest. The story is that Jim Wangers built one and drove it to work for a while. These folks thought that the perfect car for the market they wanted to satisfy was a low priced, high powered, good-looking car that any young person with a job could afford. The equipment to make these cars even faster was readily available already, so any owner could customize his or her (yeah right) car to their personal taste. How many of us look back at our younger years when we either had on of these, or had a friend with one. The imagination runs wild. Now it’s 2003 and the new GTO has been released. Who is the customer that will buy this car? Don’t get me wrong; these will be flying off the showroom floors. The idea of the GTO was that virtually anyone could afford one. This is not the case with the new car. Instead of being affordable to the old target market, it now will compete with BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes and other cars only available to the well to do. Not to mention the added dealer mark-up added to anything this popular making it even less affordable.

It seems that one reason that this car was needed in this market was the lack of GMs rear wheel drive performance car availability. So Pontiac needed to offer a performance 2-door with rear wheel drive, a powerful V-8 engine, great styling and easily recognizable as a Pontiac. So what happened to the Firebird? Here was a car, already made in North America that delivered all these things. What was wrong with this car? They couldn’t sell enough of them. You couldn’t find one to save your life at a dealer with the performance packages, only the ones no one wanted, with a V-6. Why not make more with the equipment that people want? So why not stay with a great looking, great handling, great performing car like that? Why take that car off the market, along with the Camaro, with its 35 years of heritage, just to replace it with a car that doesn’t have the easily recognizable styling of the Firebird? Although the Firebird in Trans-am or Formula trim wasn’t cheap, it was a lot less than the new GTO.

I am a believer that bringing back a name without the continuing heritage is wrong. Look at the late 70s when the AMX, Cobra and Roadrunner returned. There is nothing wrong with the Holden car; I just question the use of the name GTO and the market it will target. Will the buyers just be buying the name GTO printed on another fast, new, expensive car? I guess we will find out.

Styling

I used to have one just like that.

So, what is it about automotive styling? I’m sure all auto designers try to make cars that are appealing when they hit the market, but why do some age better than others? Case in point. In 1975 I was searching for a fairly new used car. The car we settled on was a 1973 Mercury Cougar XR-7 with a 351 V-8, automatic that was loaded with most options. This was the last year that the Cougar shared the same platform with the Ford Mustang. In 1974 the Mustang shared its platform with the smaller Pinto while the Cougar moved larger to share its platform with the Ford Torino and Mercury Montego. Anyway, at the time we purchased this car, it was a very stylish car. It had the current items that were popular, ½ vinyl roof, Lincoln style upright grill, 2-door hardtop and the famous Cougar sequential turn signals. About 2 years later I acquired a 1969 Ford Mustang Mach I. This was an odd model as it had a 351 V-8 but had a 2-bbl carb, 3-speed manual trans. and single exhaust. As this car was older and had more miles on it, it was a fair amount cheaper to purchase. The interesting thing about these 2 cars was that although they were similar in size and actually shared the same chassis, the styling aged totally differently. When I sold both these cars a number of years later, the lower mileage and newer Cougar had become a $1000,00 car that I sold to a high school kid. The Mustang was sold at about the same time to a Mustang collector for $3500.00 plus a trade in of a mostly restored 1962 Chevy Nova convertible. At today’s values the Cougar would have some value, in good condition maybe $2500-3000, but the 1969 Mach I in the condition it was in would probably bring $25,000-35,000. Nearly all of this difference could be contributed to the styling of the cars.

As I said before, I’m sure both the stylists of both these vehicles were sure these would be classics someday. They were the products of the same design studio at Ford motor co. It was just that one was a hit the other was a miss. If we fast forward to the present, how do we tell if the new car we just bought will be a classic design or not? If any of us could tell that, we could predict the future. And I’m not too sure that your car becoming a classic in the future is important to most of the auto buying public. After all most of us will trade off the cars we buy after a few years. When we find out years later that what we traded in for “low blue book” back then is now worth a bunch. We will just get depressed. How many of us remember cars that we owned years ago, that now bring huge money.

So as we look back at the GTO’s, Mustang’s, Chevelle’s and even 240-Z’s or any number of other cars that have risen in value that we may have owned over the years, I guess just the memories, and the “I owned one just like that” will have to suffice..

That wonderful car buying experience

About ten months ago, I decided to go out and test drive, then write about some new vehicles. I thought that I would write about the single most popular vehicle that I see here on the island, a half ton, extended cab, four wheel drive pick-up with a rather high level of trim. So, on a trip home from the mainland one evening in October, I decided to check out the three major contenders for this comparison, the all new Ford F-150 the also new Dodge as well as the not so new Chevy or GMC.

My first stop was the local auto mall and a Ford dealer. This was not the closest Ford dealer to my house, but the one that was closer has always seemed to me to be one of those “high pressure” dealers, and that was not what I was looking for for this test drive. I stopped in and asked to speak to the sales manager. She came over to me and I asked if I could test drive a new F-150 and take some pictures, although I was not interested in buying one at this time. She looked at me a little funny, and asked why. I told her I was going to write about this for a column so she asked if she could see an example. I said that the columns that I write are on the internet and she could see them there but she said they did not have internet access there. Anyway, after a short conversation with her boss, she came out and gave me the keys to a 2004 Lariat. I decided to look the truck over pretty carefully and take some pictures, but since it was beginning to get dark, I wouldn’t drive it until later. I was impressed by the thought and design that went into the new F-150 and it was apparent to me why it was chosen by most journalists to be the finest of the current trucks.

My second stop was at the dealership next door to do the same with the new Dodge. By this time, I thought of a slightly better line of crap to give the sales manager, and the keys were given right to me along with a young salesman. I told him what I was intending to do, and also that I had just looked at the Ford. He immediately started to show me all the features that I’m sure that Dodge told them to show off in response to a possible customer that had already checked out the Ford. The Dodge has 20” wheels, it has regular hinged doors instead of the hidden reverse doors of the Ford. It also had a rather ingenious folding rear seat idea, the seats folded down and became a hard metal floor. A good idea for those who may want to stow tools or other things, that might scratch up the upholstery. Other than that, I saw very little that the Dodge had that could be considered better than what the Ford offered. The biggest difference I noticed was the difference in build quality and material quality between the two. The Ford was so far ahead that respect that it was no contest.

But, believe it or not, that’s not even why I wrote this at this time. I never followed up on this comparison test. I got real busy there for a while and by the time I got back to try to finish this up, the new truck comparison was rather old news that everyone had already heard.

About the end of May, I had the opportunity to sell my trusty old 1990 Ford F-150 pick-up. I told my wife that we may want to shop around a little for a replacement truck, and was surprised that she wanted to do this right away. I mentioned that what I thought would be the ideal truck for us would be about three or four years old (darn, no new F-150), half ton, extended cab, four wheel drive, somewhat well equipped, Ford or GMC. After the first stop, my wife decided we definitely needed to get a four door. This really narrowed down our choices, as not nearly as many of these were produced.

We pulled into the same Ford dealership that I had been to before. I asked for the same woman I had dealt with before, but it was her day off. Another saleswoman was eager to help though, and so I told her of my needs and wants in a truck. She said she only had one used four door truck in stock, and that it was a 2001 “King Ranch”. Now, I keep up on vehicles as much as just about anybody, but I’d never even heard of a “King Ranch”. It is an actual model of an F-150 with a very high trim level and a Saddle Leather interior. I sat in this truck and was absolutely amazed. This truck had just about every option that any Lincoln Town Car might have plus. My wife said she really wanted this truck, so we drove it around and were even offered to compare it with the new models. The price seemed a bit high to me, and because I refuse to ever pay much for any vehicle, I said we would talk about it and call her back. She handed me her card and said “talk about it and make me an offer”. On the way out of the auto mall we drove by the Dodge dealer I had visited before, and by a Nissan dealer that was owned by the same company. I turned into the Nissan dealer and told my wife that I had also heard good things about the new Titan pick-up. I also told her that the problem was that since they had just come out this year, it would be tough to find a three or four year old used one. A young salesman came out and asked what we were looking at, and was quick to get us into the drivers seat of the new truck. I told him that it really wasn’t in the cards for us to buy a brand new truck, but he said we could drive it to their other lots and see what used trucks they might have. The new Nissan was a very impressive truck. It would probably follow the Ford closely in a comparison. But alas, we did not find anything within our budget that we wanted, so we got out and the young salesman said he would take down my name and phone number in case something came in. We walked in the showroom door to give him our info. where he promptly disappeared. In his place appeared an obnoxious closer, who pretty much wouldn’t let us leave until we told him “what it would take for us to drive the truck home today” I told him that my truck was selling the next day and that I would not spend money that was not in my hand yet. That was not a good enough answer for him. Finally he asked how much I could spend for a monthly payment. I told him that I wanted to keep it around $400.00 per month. He said he could not only do that, but he would give me the $2000.00 I was going to use from the sale of my truck to pay off my wife’s car. He told me that he could offer this, but he had to run it past his manager. He returned quickly and said “no problem” he said he could sell me a $28,000 truck, add tax and license, add the $2,000.00 from my truck sale, take no money down, and finance all this for 96 months at $420.00 per month. Now, I’m not a math wiz, but this hardly seemed right. It was about this time that I remembered that an employee of mine had come in beaming from ear to ear a few months ago, driving a brand new 350Z. He had gotten this from this same dealer with the same long term, ridicules financing. They called him the next day demanding thousands more down or they would come repossess the car. He drove the wheels off the car for a few days then returned it. I could see exactly what these guys had up their sleeves. How many people come home with a new car, show it off to all their friends and relatives, then when they get a call for more money, they pay it just to avoid the embarrassment. At this point I insisted on leaving, told the closer that even if I changed my mind and decided to buy a Titan pick-up, it would not be from them, and left.

I did return and buy the King Ranch truck from the other dealer. It was probably the best car buying experience I’ve had. In fact when I was trying to find a “blue book” value on the truck, I got conflicting information on some options, as to whether they were standard on the King Ranch or not. These were no small options, four wheel drive and the 5.4 liter motor. I was told they were standard equipment, but the dealer said they were not. Neither of us had any proof either way. I offered “blue book” price without these added in, and since they had no proof that they were actually options, they said “O K”. I later found out that these were not standard equipment and told them before I signed the papers to buy the truck. They said they would stay with the agreed upon price. They also gave a 30 day warranty on the drive-train. During that time we found some other misc. problems. They fixed them for free and even washed the truck for us.

What a huge difference between these two dealers. Which one do you think gets the best “word of mouth” advertising? Who do you think sleeps better at night? Since you have the option of any number of dealers within reach of home, isn’t this the real difference between them? The only problem is trying to find out which ones are like the one I purchased my truck from, and which ones are like the Nissan dealer. I know where the rest of my cars will be purchased, Skagit Ford Subaru in Burlington Wa. Bruce.

the new gto II

The new GTO II or enter the Mustang.

Some of you readers may remember a blurb I wrote a while back about the return of the Pontiac GTO. Well, it’s here. I still feel it is a car that I question the market for, but it has been a hit so far. I guess that it is the General Motors engineer’s idea of what the evolution would have been if the GTO had been produced until today. Actually if they were trying to be as accurate to the old car as possible, it would be a Grand Am with a V-8. Now that won’t happen or probably work, but unfortunately, the car looks more like it’s lesser siblings than I think it should. But, we have looked at this already. What we haven’t gotten into is the just released 2005 Mustang. Now the big advantage the Mustang has is that while both the GTO and the Mustang came out as new models in 1964, the GTO only lasted 10 years, while the Mustang never left us. That being the case, it was able to evolve rather than be resurrected after a 30-year absence. After reading about the new Mustang in some detail, this is a car that has been totally re-thought for this new series. The first series of mustang, made from 1964-1966, was considered by many to be the best and purest Mustang ever. The next series, 1967-1968 was not far behind in styling, and much advanced of the last series in performance. The 1969-1970 cars were somewhat unusual in styling in the fact that the standard Mustang of these years was much plainer, while the new series of Mach-1 and the Boss cars are considered by most to be the most beautiful of all the early Mustangs. In 1971 the cars got much larger and sales fell off drastically. By this time, the gas crisis was under way and so in 1974 we were given the Mustang II. This car has been ridiculed since shortly after it was released, but it increased sales back to near record levels. In 1979, the Mustang was restyled and improved. During the long run of this series we saw the return of the GT, the convertible and performance return. This was a car that not only appealed to a large audience, but was available in many levels from economy car to muscle car, much like the original car. In 1984, the car had a rather major makeover. This is the car we have had offered to us up through this year. Again, this has been available with anything from an economical V-6 to a dual overhead cam V-8 with a supercharger that makes 385 horsepower.

Now in the last few years, many manufacturers have come out with cars that have been a hit with “retro” styling. The new beetle, the Thunderbird, the SSR and the PT cruiser are just some examples. So Ford decided to make the 2005 Mustang also look retro. In my opinion, they did a fantastic job of melding the second and third series high points into a beautiful car for today. The fastback styling, (that was famous for blind spots) has great windows in the rear quarters. These not only make the car safer, but also are retro to the 1966 GT350 Shelby fastbacks. Even the dash looks retro with two large eyebrows over both sides of the dash and gauges that are very similar in styling to the ‘67s. But for an update to 2005, the driver can select gauge lights in 125 colors. The most important thing to me is that this car looks like nothing else on the road. But, when you see a picture of this new car, you immediately recognize it as a Mustang. Not only are there changes in the styling, but also the car is vastly improved in both engine and chassis. The new V-8 engine has a new 3-valve overhead cam design with a center-mounted plug that helps both performance and economy. The new hydro-formed frame is something like 8 times as rigid as the previous model. The only disappointment to me is the one-year absence of a convertible and SVT series GT. I’m told these will return next year along with a new Lightning pick-up.

I guess what bothers me the most about the GTO verses the Mustang is that the GTO will cost a lot more than a similar Mustang. I’m sure the performance will be similar, but the styling and the whole package of the Mustang is much more thought out. But, keep in mind, the Mustang was a whole new design from Ford, the GTO is only a different trim package bolted onto the Existing Holden Monero from Australia. Maybe if General Motors really designed the new GTO from scratch with some retro flavor, we would have a totally different car. Now don’t get me wrong. I will always be a Pontiac fan. I own way more Pontiacs than any other make, and I’ve had a number of GTOs in the past and hope to own more in the future. I just think that General Motors has lost it’s styling prowess. By the way, I hope to test both these cars to get a real comparison soon. Bruce.

where has all the styling gone?

Where did all the styling go?

Years ago there were two types of cars in the world. Expensive cars for the well to do, and common cars for the majority. If you could afford one of the cars along the lines of the Packard, Peerless or Pierce Arrow, you got a chassis by that manufacturer and a gorgeous body by one of a handful of custom body makers. If your choice was an inexpensive car you got their chassis with a body that was simple and cheap to manufacture. Then in an unprecedented move, Alfred Sloan, president of General Motors hired a body maker from California by the name of Harley Earl to design a new car for Cadillac, the LaSalle. This was the first relatively inexpensive car to have real style. With the popularity of this project, Harley Earl was hired full time and headed up the first large manufacturers design department. Alfred Sloan figured that two of the major things to look at in the sales of cars were, 1, make the owner of a new car unhappy with the styling of his or her car after three years, and 2, make the owner of a General Motors car want to move up the line to a higher line make of their manufacture. In other words, if the fellow buys a new Chevrolet this year, he will want a new Pontiac in three years. This was accomplished by having five lines of cars in steps from Chevrolet to Cadillac with each having three year styling cycles. The other two of the big three copied this. Ford bought Lincoln, and then brought out Mercury to fill out the gap between them. Later, they tried adding in the Edsel with disastrous results. Dodge added Chrysler and later added Plymouth. Although they tried, Ford and Chrysler never were able to fill all the steps like General Motors.

Besides the styling and trim level differences between the lines of General Motor’s products, they each had their own drive trains. One brand would come out with a feature one year, and within a few short years it was added to the other sibling lines. The automatic transmission was an example. It was first used in the Olds and Cadillac, but soon was available in all the lines. Although they often used somewhat different transmissions. The major difference between the lines was the motors they used. If you bought a Chevrolet, it had a Chevy motor, if you bought a Pontiac it had a Pontiac motor, and so on.

I sold cars for about a year in about 1978. I worked for a Pontiac/Buick/Mazda dealer. This was about the same time that General Motors started putting motors from other divisions into other cars. If you bought a Chevrolet, it may have a Buick motor in it. After a few lawsuits, they added a disclaimer that said that the car you buy might have a motor made by another division. At that point, the individual brands lost a lot of their sales points. It became very difficult to sell a customer a Pontiac wagon against the Chevrolet wagon the dealer down the street had when they only had slight styling differences. The Ford and Chrysler folks never had as much difference between the drive trains, and also had more of a jump between the divisions, so I don’t think they had as much of an issue.

What I guess what I’m trying to get at, is that styling became the only real difference between the cars at General Motors with the exception of Cadillac who has always had their own motors. General Motors was also the most famous company for their design department with great designers like Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell. So what has gone wrong over the past few years? All the manufacturers have made some really bad designs and some that are destined to be classics. But who is running the design department at General Motors? Who designed these new Cadillac’s? Does anyone really think these look good, at least anyone besides a rap star? Why does the new GTO look so muck like every other car you have to get within ten feet of it to tell what it is. And who the hell designed the new Malibu? I saw one driving down the freeway the other day and thought that was the worst looking rear end on a car that I’d seen in a long time. Then I saw the front, it was worse. It looks like a shrunk down truck grill. OK, the new trucks look good, but the design isn’t really new and the SSR is cool. Even the new Corvette may be technologically advanced, but the styling leaves me flat. I figured that since styling is in the eye of the beholder, I’d run a test of a bunch of people I know, who are not really car people. I showed them all good pictures of the 2004 GTO, the 2005 Corvette and the 2005 Mustang. I asked which car they would prefer if the price were the same and the performance was equal. They all preferred the Mustang. A few years ago everybody came out with up-scale minivan type vehicles. General Motors brought us the Pontiac Aztec, Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser. Which one looked the best and sold the best.

Don’t get me wrong. I prefer General Motor’s vehicles. Most of my cars are from them. I would just like to know what happened to that great design department? Maybe they ought to hire that guy Buick has playing Harley Earl in their ads. Bruce.