San Francisco Street Sighting: Ford Gran Torino

Yesterday, I brought you the wonderfully retro Granada from Cali's art-centric Bay Area. Tonight, my treat to viewers is this wonderfully large Gran Torino.
Common in a time where big cars, and even bigger trucks, ruled the Nation's roads, the Torino was seen as a relatively mid-size car. If you wanted a true full-size beast, you got the Galaxie; or LTD. Or one of the various Lincolns and Mercurys on sale at the time.
Since those crazy Californians tend to flock towards imports, even bigger domestic cars are not-quite-the-norm there, despite the lack of rust. I think I saw more vintage American iron in Boise. But that's not the point.
On this example, it appears as though time didn't quite stand still; while the paint is in decent shape, it remains far from show-quality-- not that enamel white had any luster to lose in the first place. The chrome, while relatively sparse, appears to be in decent shape. At least it's all there. Same story goes for the standard hubcaps. While definitely not quite pretty, they are all intact. Quite a feat for a near 40 year old daily-driver that doesn't quite have cult status.
Would I drive this example? Maybe. As far as Torinos go, I like the fastbacks a bit more. The quarter window on these coupes simply looks out of place-- almost as if it was an afterthought. Actually, knowing that this was designed in the early 1970s, it probably was. And that blind spot alone would probably scare me away from it. That, and the fact that this one is in too decent of condition to have some real fun with it.

New Cars 2011: Chevy Tahoe LT

Every year, my father and I take a trip with another one of my car buddies. This year was our turn to go fly out to see him. Usually, despite the fact that we're car people, our rental cars don't really reflect that-- or do they? Over the past few years, we've had pretty bad luck with rental cars, no matter where we end up renting from. First off, we had a blue 2007 Mercury Grand Marquis LS with a rear driver's side door that wouldn't let me out. The following year greeted us with a burnt orange Suzuki SX4 AWD whose fuel gauge was so hopelessly inaccurate we ended up laughing at its reading by weeks' end. Next trip was a bright blue Suzuki Reno with a self-deflating tire-- among other minor niggles. This year, our vehicle of choice was a barely loaded Chevy Tahoe. Would our "bad-luck" experiences still hold true? Read on to find out.

GENERICALLY MAL-ENGINEERED

We reserved an SUV, seeing as we had 5 people and their luggage to cart around the Bay Area and LA for a week. When we got to SFO to pick the rental car, choices were slim. The two Jeep Grand Cherokees they had on the lot (which I preferred by a huge margin) proved to be a dud due to misplaced keys; then they showed us a Ford Expedition-- way too big, even for this lover of gargantuan old-world fuel-guzzling SUVs. After about 5 minutes of scanning the lot for anything else, the black Tahoe was ours for a week. Upon first inspection, this particular vehicle had likely been abused. For starters, it was never washed by whoever returned it judging by the mud caked inside the cargo hold, the door seams, and on the doorsills of all four doors. Even the aluminum wheels had their share of days-old grime caking the spokes.
As far as styling goes, there isn't really much to be said; it's a generic (not much of a) bargain-basement full-size SUV. Monotone paint, smallish wheels for its size, gaping grille, extremely out-of-character "Tahoe" lettering on the doors and tailgate. It honestly feels like it was designed aesthetically to be a rental car. There is honestly nothing outright dissatisfying in regards to the styling, nor does the styling evoke much in the way of positive comments.

SMALL THINGS COME IN BIG PACKAGES

You'd expect an SUV of this size to have mass quantities of room inside, no? I did too. Unfortunately, that was the complete opposite of reality. The front seat (technically a bench) was fine, provided you don't try to squeeze a middle passenger in (we didn't); headroom up front was generous for me, since I'm a rather small 5'1". My 5'10" father had adequate headroom, which is strange because even in the smaller cars we've rented, he's had a fairly good amount. Shoulder room and footwells are deep, too.
In back, though, that's where the trouble begun. Entrance and egress was rather difficult, even for me. I kept hitting my head on either the B-pillar or the front seat damn near every time I tried to find my way inside Chevy's second biggest SUV. Once inside, the discomfort continued; whoever designed the back seat can go to hell. Nonsupportive , in this case, is a merely adequate adjective. I'm convinced that the second row seat was designed simply by placing two pieces of foamcore on a set of seat-tracks and covering them in cloth. After I got situated, interior room was rather stingy; even at 5'1", my feet kept bashing into the front seat tracks, and every time we hit a bump or pothole, it felt like my legs were going to buckle at the knees. And no, sitting in the middle didn't dilute the sardine-can feeling. I honestly think I have more room to stretch out in our Infiniti FX45, and that's a much smaller (and lower) SUV.

SPORTY RIDE?

In a city of hills and often-unsmooth roads, this setup proved to be a disaster. Not only did the rear seat deliver an extremely bouncy ride, it was a ride that made me feel as if I was strapped in a swing every time the vehicle lurched forward on a hill-- definitely not an experience I'd like to live out day-to-day. On the highway, the unsettled ride was amplified tremendously; on paved roads, the Tahoe rode fine for a vehicle of this size. Once any change in surface entered the equation...oh boy. Axle hop was extremely prevalent, and the slightest change in road conditions resulted in repeated bounces for back-seat passengers. Up front, judging from my experience, the ride was better-- but only slightly so.
Another thing that peeved me was the seemingly hollow interior construction. Along Highway 1, particularly around curves, it seemed as if the rear doors would vibrate when the vehicle was turning. Not quite something I want to experience on a day-to-day basis either. Road noise was surprisingly muted, though. Instead, exhaust warble (and excessive drone at highway speeds) drowned out any notion of outside noise. I know this is a truck-based vehicle, but jeez. For a vehicle supposedly redesigned and re-engineered for 2007, it sure feels (and rides) extremely dated.

WHAT VEHICLES DOES CHEVY TAHOE MONEY BUY?

If you're smitten with the Chevy Tahoe, then by all means, buy one. I'll just laugh at you for it. For the $45k that gets you into a base Tahoe, you could have a much nicer appointed vehicle, even if you're buying new. If you absolutely need a 5 passenger SUV with decent room and towing capabilities, I suggest the new-for-2009 Chevy Traverse in AWD guise. While a tad bit smaller, it does everything the Tahoe does, but better, and gets more than 12 MPG while doing so. Along the lines of the luxurious crossover Traverse, I would try the Mazda CX-7 or maybe even the slightly larger CX-9. If you don't need a huge vehicle, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a new 2011 Ford Explorer, in XLT AWD guise. Another seemingly strong competitor is the recently redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee. Buying slightly used can increase your value content. Under $40k is a great starting point for used higher-end SUVs. Vehicles like the BMW X5, Mercedes ML, VW Touareg, and Audi Q7, and even some models of the Porsche Cayenne. Granted, these will high undoubtedly higher repair costs should things go awry, but you'll feel better knowing you didn't pay retail for one new.
Going smaller will net you much more choices, too. We have an Infiniti FX45, and it does everything the Tahoe does-- but better. While the ride is sporty, and often time choppy, it feels more secure than the Tahoe, (ie you don't bounce four inches every time the vehicle hits a bump) and has much more space inside. I know what my $40 large would go to, and it definitely won't be a GMT-920.

San Francisco Street Sighting: Ford Granada coupe

Entering California, I expected to see loads of vehicles I've never seen in my area in good condition; but I was wrong. California was like Idaho was, only for domestic cars instead of offbeat Japanese tin. I was pretty much in awe nonstop from the airport to our hotel; I had to go back along the route and shoot! The amount of vintage (and quite rare) vintage American cars was staggering to say the least. I suppose that's what happens when rust doesn't rear its extremely ugly head. Out in Minnesota, this Ford Granada likely would've been crunched into a ball and made into something by now.
But not this example; it lives in California, and since I can't find any smog records on it, I'm gonna take a guess and say it's a 1975 model. That would make this one a first-year model, which is quite rare, since most first-year models are the first ones to go sour. When this car came out, it replaced the strong selling, but supposedly problem prone Maverick compact. Not to be left alone, clone-maker Mercury introduced a slightly more upscale version, the Monarch. Production for these first gen cars lasted until 1980, although by 1978, the Granada/Monarch twins overlapped with the arrival of the new Fairmont/Zephyr (no relation to the classic Lincoln which bears the name.)
To my Minnesota mind, this particular looked pretty clean, and it was indeed. No rust (obviously), no bondo (haha.. bondo on a car in Cali? Riiiiight), and no dents. Amazing! Even in Kansas, which doesn't get much snow, and certainly doesn't line the roads with enough salt for Bonneville, this thing would've probably been toast by now. I can pretty much guarantee that this is likely the third or fourth Granada coupe I've seen--ever.
The paint on this one was shine-free, but that was mostly due to age. The stock trim was all intact, including the oft-missing grille badge. The wheelcovers (aka hubcaps) were all intact, too. This example could pretty much pass for something from a newspaper used car ad circa 1985. I'd most certainly rock it in this condition. Even if it was in a little worse condition, I'd still rock it. I love this thing! And I don't even know why; probably for the retro factor.
Would I do anything differently if it was mine? Nope. I'd leave it as. The factory-correct everything just makes this Granada what it is. And that's why I love it!

Minneapolis Street Sighting: Triumph TR3

Okay, so I realize I've shot and blogged more than a few British sports cars. I can't help it, I'm growing to love them; and this little TR3 is no exception. Although this example is pretty dusty, no doubt due to sitting outside a construction area, it is a really sweet example of an iconic British roadster. Finished in a custom blend of two different factory Ford colors, this Triumph TR3 is a one-owner 1958 model owned (and modified slightly) since new.
The owner, who owns Quality Coaches) traded in a 1949 Chevy pickup and $65 in exchange for this little car in the summer of 1959. Over the years, this TR3 has served its time as a daily driver, a track toy, and more recently, a summer toy. Since it's used primarily as a summer car now, the windshield, and wipers were scrapped, as well as any resemblance of bumpers. While it looks fine as is, the owner says he'll be updating it, and possibly be repainting it again. In the plans for sure are new widened steelies, wheel spacers and possible fender flares. Autocross car anyone?
While not perfect, I would definitely call this particular Triumph a time-capsule car; it's got no rust, no bondo, and no evidence whatsoever of hamfisted bodywork. Even the stock interior has been kept at its minimalist roots; honestly there's no need for modern gizmos in a perfectly fine sports car. In true British car fashion, the owner enjoys this little sportster best "when it works". Hmm.. do I sense a slight bit of humor in that comment? It doesn't appear that this little guy requires very much tinkering. Although, from what I hear, one hasn't lived the true British car experience until they're spent more garage time with their car than family time with their spouse.

New Cars 2010/2011: Nissan Armada

A prospective buyer wants a full-size luxury SUV, but the buyer doesn't want a run of the mill Chevy Tahoe or GMC Yukon; and Ford's Expedition is way too long. What company does that buyer turn to? The answer is Nissan. Before the prospect steps up to the $56,000 Platinum trimlevel, consider this. The bottom-rung SE still has the navigation system, the backup warnings, and the copious amounts of interior room one could ask for in a truck this size. Gone are the leather, the alcantara headliner, the 18" chrome-plated wheels, and the vast cubbies filling the entire interior.
While fullsize SUVs as a whole get pretty terrible gas mileage, I wasn't expecting 8.7 MPG. Granted we had 5 people, and 2 dogs inside, but still. Mileage that bad is enough to render a Ford Excursion a useful alternative-- hey, it'd probably get better gas mileage.
Buyer beware though. A luxury vehicle the SE is not; it competes at the lower end of the fullsize SUV segment with such cheapies as the (discontinued) Dodge Durango SXT and the Chevy Tahoe LT. While it does have 4WD (if so equipped), the SE lacks all the conveniences of the more expensive version. From the inside, its hard to believe the Armada SE retails for a hair over $38 grand; it honestly has an interior no better than a 1998-era Nissan Altima fit-and-finish-wise; the third row is cramped, the ride is obnoxiously bouncy, even for an SUV of this size. For the money it costs to buy a new SE, a one-to-two year old Platinum grade Armada would be a better buy. Or if you can swing the repair bills, try a Range Rover.
Would I turn down a base-grade Armada? Probably not; it was fine for what it was. Would I want to own one? Absolutely not. Given the vast array of behemoth SUVs out there, I'd probably stick to my loyals and choose the unstoppable Toyota Land Cruiser or Mercedes G-class. While those two trucks costs a bit more upfront, both yield a much smoother ride, and have an astounding level of creature comforts even the Platinum Armada can't touch. At least you'll get your money back if you get tired of the awful fuel economy.