Tag: Cars

Some time back, I was watching some EewwChoob thing about cars that looked good but were absolute rubbish, either to drive or because they were completely unreliable.  I can’t find the video, of course, because Internet Confusion, but here’s a short list of cars that I wish had been made properly — i.e. with today’s machining, fit and electricals — so that one could drive them for a long distance or time without having to have a mechanic/towing service on speed dial, and drive them without impaling yourself on a tree at the very first kink in the road. I’ve left off the Usual Suspects (e.g. the E-type, Ferrari 246 and various Astons, because I’ve looked at them often enough).  Also, because they’re mostly tourers, to be driven for long distances in comfort, I’ve set aside my normal disdain for cabrios and soft-tops.

They’re not in any specific order, pretty much just as they came to me.

Triumph Stag
One of the best-looking touring cars ever made, the Stag was uniformly horrible, not the least because of Both Mr. Free Market and Drummer Knob had a Stag;  as I recall, Knob exchanged his for a Mini-Cooper (!), while Mr. Free Market’s memorable quote was:

“Dear boy, that Stag used so much oil that every time I put my foot down, I shifted BP’s share price two points.”

But…

As Jeremy Clarkson says, it still looks good, even today.  With the Rover (a.k.a. Buick) 3.6-liter engine, it might have been a world-beater except for the fact that it would rust faster than a Lancia.

Jensen Interceptor
One of the best names ever for a car.  The 1972 Jensen MkII is my favorite, with the Chrysler 7.2-liter (443 cubic inch) V8.  Built properly, with today’s machining, finishing and wiring, I’d take one in a heartbeat.

Getting the cabrio would leave off that PITA big rear window, but in either guise the Interceptor just looks fantastic.

Maserati 350 Vignale (1964)
I think Maserati has always made superior tourers (as opposed to sports cars), and this one is no exception.

Alas, like all Italian cars of that era, they suffered from and Terminal Rust Condition, but if you could address those two problems as above, the idea of setting off across Europe or the U.S. behind that wonderful 3.5-liter straight six… oh, man.

Sunbeam Alpine MkI Drophead (1953)
Why would I want to drive this oldster with its silly 2.3-liter 95hp four-banger engine?  Because it’s the car in which Cary Grant seduced Grace Kelly in To Catch A Thief, is why.  Also:

Actually, being underpowered was the least of the Alpine’s problems.  It suffered from post-war to such a degree that no two were ever wired the same way, and in some cases they used metals other than copper (Britain still suffering from post-WWII shortages of copper even though other nations e.g. Italy and Germany weren’t), with MTBF* often measured in hours.  The steering was totally shit, and the suspension was given to breaking when going over so much as a driveway entrance.

The saloon version won several rally races, but that was because they were modified beyond recognition.

But the drophead looks mahvelous, hence its inclusion in this post.

Which old cars would you like to see, resto-modded / remanufactured?  (Limit three per comment.)

---

*Mean Time Between Failures

Inspired by the post above, let’s assume that you could get your hands on three mint-condition (as-new, restored or even resto-modded) cars which were made without an onboard computer (say, for the sake of argument, before 1986), which three vehicles would you choose?  (Ignore price and maintenance costs for the sake of the exercise.)

You can have a truck, car, SUV, or any combination (two cars, one truck;  truck, car and SUV;  three trucks, etc.).

Mine:

1.)  1984 Mercedes 300 D Geländewagen W460

With a towbar and a/c, that’s my go-to truck/SUV combination.

2.)  1962 Jaguar E-type 3.8 Fixed Head Coupé

‘Nuff said.  And for a luxury, effortless drive:

3.)  1975 Mercedes 350SE W116

All day, baby.

Your choices (with reasons, if wanted) in Comments.

An email from Reader Larry F asks:  “I know you love the Dino 246, but you also admit that they’re not that great to drive.  If you could have any recent Ferrari (produced since the Dino), which one would you choose?”

That’s actually an easy one.  The only Ferrari I’d care to drive today (other than the Dino 246) is the last model Ferrari offered with a stick shift, the 599 GTB of the early 2000s.

Here’s a comparison of the two:

I need to make a couple of points, though.  One of the things I love about the earlier Ferraris like the Dino is that they’re small and nimble.  After that they started growing and growing, until we finally arrived at elefanti  like the 599.  Here’s the comparison between the Dino and the 599 (l-r):

 

By comparison, the Dino is the nimble teenager while the 599 is its fat-ass Italian mama.

Of course, the power is not comparable, the 246 GT’s V6 192hp being dwarfed by the 599’s V12 612hp (which it needs to get that extra 1,600lbs moving).  I wouldn’t care about acceleration (0-60:  7.0secs vs. 3.7secs) or top speed (148mph vs. 208mph) unless I were at Spa-Francorchamps, which is never gonna happen.

I’ve never driven the 599, but it’s probably a lot easier to handle than the Dino, so there’s that.

But in looks, the Dino still wins by a country mile.  The 599 looks like a fatter Mazda Miata RF:

YMMV.

Just when I thought I’d finally found a car which suits my needs (smallish saloon, stick shift, decent horsepower — turbo maybe — with decent reliability), comes this news:

The new Civic sedan already looked good. It’s got a sharper design, a nicer interior, and loads more tech. The only problem was no manual transmission. But Honda manual die-hards can relax. Your hero has arrived. It’s the 2022 Honda Civic Hatchback.

I’m not a Honda die-hard;  in fact, I’ve never owned a Honda of any description.  But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t, given that everyone who has owned one seems to like them.  (Best line ever, from a friend who had just bought his wife her third Honda in a row:  “Not even Irene can fuck up a Honda.”)   Oh, and by the way:  that “loads more tech” thing is actually a negative for me, of course.

Unfortunately, though, the reason I’ve never owned a Honda is that in my opinion they’re always just a tad too expensive for what you’re getting — whether new or second hand.  Here’s a comparison (CarMax):

 

…and it should be noted that the Civic doesn’t have a stick shift, but the Jetta does.  Up till now, Honda’s only offered a stick shift in their racier models (Si and Type-R), where the prices — even second hand — are prohibitive.

That price disparity, by the way, is the same in new cars (Edmunds):

…and both cars have manual transmission, in this case.

The only thing I have going for me — touch wood — is that I can afford to wait a while, because while second-hand car prices are increasing, that’s not the case with stick shifts.  It seems that few young people can drive them nowadays (Daughter and #2 Son can, Son&Heir could, but prefers not to), so there’s that.  And the Tiguan still rolls along, 115k miles and counting.

As I’ve written before:  I’ve owned three Jettas in my lifetime, and loved each one.  None of them gave me any trouble whatsoever.  The only reason I sold two of them was because we’d just moved to downtown Chicago and didn’t need two cars.  Then I sold the third, a wagon, because we needed a Suburban.

I wish I could say I enjoy this, but I don’t.  Buying cars is only pleasurable if you’re rich, and I’m not.