Get a grip... with snow tires.

I had some perfect timing yesterday.  Realizing that it was getting to be that time of year again, and that I was due for an oil change anyway, I made an appointment to have my snow tires mounted on my car….  Just in time for the snowfall that came yesterday evening.  Some of that snow is still sticking around today, but not enough to make the prospect of getting out my cross country skis or Pavlov’s skijoring gear worthwhile -which is a real shame, because I do have the day off, and it would have been fun to go skiing, and I'm sure Pavlov would have loved to go skijoring -at the very least, he loves putting on his skijoring jacket -not so much the boots, and we've all but given up on him wearing his UV goggles in spite of his blown left pupil that is at full dilation at all times (genetic anomaly -he's a homozygous merle Great Dane even though he looks like a mismarked mantle Dane).  Today's post is going to make the case for outfitting your car with snow tires -provided you actually drive in an area where there's snow.  Just like people wear snow boots, and like my pup, Pavlov dons his Ruffwear brand Grip Trex Bark'n Boots for Skijoring, your car needs some winter kicks, too.  If you don't believe me, just ask Pavlov.

Some people buy a cheap, second set of rims that they keep their snow tires mounted on, then they just swap out the rims, which is easy to do at home by yourself, but most of the people I know who do this actually have a tire place handle the work for them.  That’s one way to do it, but I like the rims I have on my car, and to buy a new set just like them would cost me just under a grand per rim.  I could buy cheap, steel rims, but why should my car have to wear ugly rims just because there’s snow on the ground?  I figure that by the time the cost of having tires swapped out,  mounted, and balanced on my rims reaches the point where it would have been cheaper to buy another set of rims, I’d be due for new tires anyway, and would still have to pay to have them mounted and balanced.  I don’t have a set up for mounting and balancing tires myself, so, I have it done for me, and I try to time it so that I can get the oil changed at the same time as I have the tires swapped (I haul my summer tires home and store them until spring).  ….I could just change my own oil, but lately, it is actually more cost effective to have it done by somebody else.  By the time I pay for the oil and filter that my car needs, I’m pretty much within a dollar or two of what it would cost me to have a mechanic do the work, and when I factor in my time, having to get out my tools and crawl under my car, then it becomes a money losing proposition.  I like doing things myself, but not if it’s going to lose me money and time.

So -snow tires….  I can’t emphasize enough how great they are for people living in areas where it gets cold, icy, and snowy.  You might not think they make that much difference, but take it from a gal who drives a Mustang year round (rear wheel drive through the snow and ice), IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.  When there’s snowfall filling the air with heavy flakes that then pile up on the ground as slippery, slushy mounds that you have to drive over and through, you want as much traction as you can get, or you’re going to find yourself in a ditch or in the path of oncoming traffic.  Snow tires give you all the grip you could possibly have in that situation.  I’ll explain how it works.

Those of you who have been reading my blog for a while may recall a post about tires in general from this past May 16th that came about during a visit to the tire store when I had to replace a wrecked summer tire after falling victim to the carelessness of a scrapper truck spewing bits of jagged metal all over the roadway just days prior to that.    If you want to read that post, go ahead, because it covers a variety of tires in addition to snow tires.  But, if you want the nitty-gritty on snow tires right here and now, just stay put.

Don’t let some claims of “all-season” tires fool you….  You can leave those on your car year round, but they are not particularly well suited for any type of driving because all-season tires are a compromise of materials and design that makes them sort of passable for most driving conditions, but ideal for none.  It may be that your car came with all season tires from the factory, but if I were you, I’d get snow tires for winter.  You can keep the all seasons for spring, summer and fall, but when it’s time to replace them, go with a summertime performance tire and swap them out with your snow tires in winter.

Summer tires will have bigger, wider tread blocks filling the spaces between the grooves than a winter tire for more contact with the pavement.  They‘re made from rubber that is tougher and stiffer than snow tires. Many summer tires have grooves designed to fling rain away from the treads, and that’s about as much as you can expect from them when dealing with bad weather.  The point of a summer tire is to have a large contact patch with the surface that it’s rolling over, which hopefully most of the time, is dry pavement, so you can get traction to get up and go.  In contrast, snow tires are made of a softer, more malleable rubber formulation that doesn’t get so stiff and hard when exposed to cold weather (as such, they’ll be even softer in hot weather and will wear down super fast if you forget to swap them out and use them during the summer -though you‘ll probably get some nice, sticky traction for driving before they’re shot).  Because they retain some flexibility, snow tires can grab and grip better than a harder tire when temperatures become arctic.  There are more sipes -the little grooves that crisscross the tires on a snow tire than on a summer tire, and the larger tread grooves are designed in a layout that is meant to give the tire the ability to grab and rip its way through snow and slush.

I drove my previous Mustang year round without the benefit of snow tires.  I know the difference between having them and not having them.  There’s a reason I make a point of getting my tires swapped seasonally now, and for those of you living in areas where snow or ice hits the ground in winter, it’s worth the investment.

There are different types of snow tires available.  I run Dunlop WinterSport M3’s on my car.  They’re a directional rotation performance snow tire that’s meant for more aggressive driving.  Directional rotation means that there’s only one way the tires are designed to roll, so it limits tire rotation options, but also means the tires were designed with more precision in mind for how it handles and performs.  There are lots of options available, and it never hurts to shop around for tires, either.  I’m rather fond of Dunlop tires, myself.  My summer tires are also made by Dunlop, though sold under a different name.  I used to buy Michelin tires for my Jeep, and was quite happy with those when I had them, but there are lots and lots of good tires being made.  Find one that suits your car and your driving style.
   

I would suggest to anybody who puts any amount of money into their tires or rims, or both, that you also invest in a set of locking lug nuts.  These help prevent thieves from stealing the rims right off your car because they require a specific key socket to unfasten.  Keep that socket hidden in your car so you have it should you ever need to change a tire and make sure you don’t lose it.  Even if you live in a small town or a suburb where there isn’t a lot of crime, you never know what kind of shiftless assholes are lurking about, just looking for opportunities to do something shitty.  All some people need is a tire iron and the prospect of making a few bucks by unloading your rims and tires on Craigslist or selling them out of the back of a van in some crappy parking lot to motivate them to take something they’ve got no business having in the first place and leaving you holding the bag.  There’s always a chance that you could walk out to your driveway some morning and find your car sitting up on blocks with no wheels.  The prospect of paying out several hundred dollars for an insurance deductible, or a couple grand if you’re going out of pocket to replace rims and tires is much worse than paying out $40-50 for a set of locking lug nuts to help protect your investment.

So, today’s lesson is what?  Snow tires and locking lug nuts, folks.  Get them, use them, and drive safe.      

Time to roll with the Volvo 122S

Look what I found when I was out and about last week.  This old Volvo was sitting in the parking lot at Harbor Freight, which is where I go to buy cheap tools that I won’t feel bad about breaking or mistreating.  Usually, you’ll see me at Harbor Freight when I need to replace a right angle grinder that I've ruined by using it in my fiberglass work -the ground up resin and fiberglass matting gunks up the insides of the grinders and renders them inoperable very quickly.  Usually, I can open up the grinder and clean things out once or twice to get it working again, but eventually, they all fail.  This isn't just a matter it being a cheap tool and thus more likely to break -of course, a cheaply constructed tool IS more likely to fail faster, but I wreck them so quickly, any cheap parts don‘t even have enough time to wear out naturally….  I've wrecked some really nice grinders in my day -they all suffer when it comes to dealing with fiberglass- it’s just cheaper to replace an inexpensive Harbor Freight special than a nice Dewalt or Makita grinder.  Right now, I keep a Hitachi grinder for legitimate metal work and use my cheapo grinders for the stuff that’s likely to destroy the tools I’m using.  Harbor Freight also happens to carry a few Japanese style pull saws that can be had for a very small amount of money, and I like to keep those in stock in my sculpting studio as well.  In short, Harbor Freight has cheap tools, but they’re useful, and often times, I've found myself surprised at how well their tools hold up.  I love Harbor Freight because I love cheap tools -I also love expensive tools, but they come with the extra responsibility of having to take good care of them and put them away where I won’t lose them, so I can’t be as careless as I’d like with nice stuff.

You’re probably thinking, “she’s done it again -gone way off topic yammering on and on about a tool store when she was supposed to be talking about a car” -okay, you’re right, I did do that, but there’s a point to it.  It’s an interesting contrast I’m working with in today’s post, you see.  Funny, how I should discover a fantastically reliable and well-built old machine that has held up for decades parked in the lot of the place where I buy tools and machines that I consider largely disposable.

Volvo is a Swedish Car manufacturer -well, it was, anyway.  In 1999, Volvo was part of Ford, and in 2010, Ford sold Volvo to Geely -a Chinese company.  So, Volvos are Swedish by way of the US and China.  Today’s Volvo is a bonafide Swedish Volvo because it predates Geely and Ford by a few decades.  An interesting little fact for you here: Volvo is Latin for “I roll”, which seems apt for a car name.

This is a Volvo 122S, which is not a particularly cool name for a car -I really don’t care for car names that consist of numerical designations with a letter or two thrown in.  Volvo didn't, either, but in this case, the car was named the 122S because, outside of Sweden, the name that Volvo originally picked for their car was already owned by a motorcycle company.  The 122S was known in Sweden as the Amazon -actually, as the Amason, because spelling it with a Z would have gotten them in some trouble.  Still, it was too similar to Amazon to be sold outside of Sweden under that name, and apparently, coming up with a new actual name for the car would have been too much work, thus, 122S.

You’ve probably seen old Volvos cruising around all over the place, and there’s a reason for that.  Volvos were well-made cars.  They were designed not so much for driving excitement, but for safety and durability.  These things had to survive harsh Scandinavian winters, where the elements of nature become detrimental to the elements that compose the vehicle that has to drive through all that.  Not only is there added risk of corrosion from constant snow and slush smooshing and sloshing up onto the car from the roadways and more so even from salt and chemical melting agents used to do away with some of that snow and ice, there’s also the risk of sliding around and losing control after one has lost traction on icy roadways.  To deal with this, Volvo went the distance in rust-proofing their vehicles.  After all, the last thing they wanted to see was one of their cars looking like a pile of rust driving around for all to see while they’re trying to sell potential buyers on the notion of purchasing a new version of that car.  

The fact that you can still see so many Volvos that are well over a decade or two or three old tells you that these vehicles were built to last.  They were also built to make their occupants last.  Volvo has a history of incorporating safety features into their vehicles long before any federal guidelines mandate it.  It may not be the cheapest way to build a car, but of course, Volvo isn't Harbor Freight, is it?  It’s a strategy that makes sense if you think about it -of course Volvo would want its customers to live to buy another vehicle from them after they wreck the one they've got.

The 122S was available in the US market from 1959-1970, though it was available as the Amason in Sweden 3 years prior to that.  It’s hard for me to say what year this one is, as all 122Ss pretty much look alike.  I’m sure there’s some Volvo aficionado who could look at the fender badge and tell you what year its placement designates, but I’m not a Volvo expert, just a Volvo admirer.  I can tell you that in 1966, well before Volvo or any car maker had to do so, Volvo was incorporating 3-point safety restraints (seat belts) and reinforced roof pillars as well as front disc brakes into their vehicles.  In contrast, my ’69 MGB-GT, a car three years newer, still featured only lap belts.  Though the two cars did have something in common -they both are powered by 1800cc I4 engines. The 122S had about 85 HP and just over 100 lb-ft of torque, so it wasn't a powerhouse, though it was fairly lightweight at 2,600 lbs.

That 2,600 is an interesting number, too, because in 1966, you could buy a 122S for roughly that same amount of dollars.  Volvos selling at a dollar per pound -not a bad deal….  Of course, that was 1966 money, and for that same amount back then, you could have any number of cars.  In the mid 60’s you could buy an MGB or a Pontiac Firebird  for just about that same amount, an Austin Mini Cooper for about $1,600 -which would leave you with a grand left in your pocket, a VW Beetle for about $1,800, an Austin Healey Sprite for just over $2,000, a Ford Fairlane for about $2,200, a hardtop Mustang for right around $2,400, a Triumph Spitfire for about $2,300, a Plymouth Fury (star of yesterday’s post) for about $2,500, or, if you had work to do, a Ford Bronco SUV for $2,500, or a Ford F100 pickup truck for right around $1,800.  So, why buy the Volvo?  It’s not like you’re going to look really cool when you pull up at the stop light next to any of these other cars that can be had for the same or less money -possibly with the exception of the truck, and it’s not like the Volvo is going to beat any of them in an out and out drag race away from that stop light, so why the Volvo?  Safety, reliability, and durability.  The only really bad thing I've found about the 122S is that the transmission is lousy in terms of shifting from gear to gear at appropriate times, but once that hurdle is overcome -it’s just a crappy 3 speed, so 122S owners might as well replace the silly thing anyway if they want to enjoy their Volvo- the car is golden.  I mean, look at this thing -at the newest, this car is 43 years old now -look how well it has held up -and in Minnesota, the land of ice, snow, slush, and road salt, no less!  I can only wish my MG had undergone the kind of rust proofing this Volvo came with from the factory.  If Harbor Freight sold cars, you probably wouldn't find a Volvo like this among their inventory.    

From Halloween to Christine: The Plymouth Fury

Happy Halloween!  To celebrate, I thought I’d feature a scary car for today’s post.  Sure, I’ve got all kinds of pictures of rat rods with skulls and spiders on them, and we’ve already covered the Ghostbuster’s car and a few hearses last week.  Yeah, those are kind of creepy cars, but today’s car is scarier than all of them because today’s car is vindictive, angry, possessive, murderous, and wrathful -one might even say, furious.  I’m talking about the Plymouth Fury, of course.  The most famous of these is the 1958 Fury featured in the book Christine by Stephen King, and the movie based on the book that was made by John Carpenter (who, of course, made the movie, Halloween -how appropriate!).  As a quick side note, for those of you who like to play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, it is said that he was originally offered the role of main character (aside from the car, that is) Arnie, but turned it down to star in Footloose, instead.

What do we know about Furies?  Roman mythology tells us that the furies are first and foremost, definitely female.  They are supreme beings that embody vengeance, the divine manifestation of the rage of the dead, according to some.  You know that saying “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, that’s dead on when we’re talking about Christine.  In short, you don’t mess with a fury.  In automotive terms, a fury is a car that Plymouth first introduced for the 1956 model year.

The first Furies, 1956-1958 were derived from the Plymouth Belvedere, which I have a 1957 example of pictured here in white.  They’re really the same car with different badges, because the Fury was initially more of a trim package available on the Belvedere rather than a stand alone model.  That is why, but for some of the trim and badges, this Belvedere looks nearly identical to what a Fury of the same year would look like, and also, very much like the 1958 Plymouth Fury that Christine was.

In fact, it looks like this Belvedere is channeling a bit of fury itself.  Check out those flames on the front.

The movie took a slightly different approach to Christine than King’s book.  For starters, Christine went from being a sedan in the book to being a 2-door in the movie -which I think is a good move considering that it makes the idea of having a Christine replica that much more appealing for collectors, who nearly always prize a coupe over a sedan.  Instead of being possessed by the vengeful spirit of Mr. Lebay, Christine’s previous owner, Christine is instead born/assembled an evil car.  In the movie, we see Christine smash one of the assembly line worker’s hands in her hood, and later, off another employee who makes the mistake of smoking inside the car while it’s on the assembly line.

If you watch the movie, you’ll note that Christine is the only Fury coming down the assembly line that isn’t white.  That’s because all Furies from 1956-1958 were offered only in beige or off-white with gold trim.  This tells us that either Christine was just conceived by some magical, mythical evil that preferred red over beige, or that she was a custom order.

In the book, it is explained that Christine was custom car ordered to be painted Ford red -which might also account for why, later in the movie, the detective (who drives a late 70’s model Fury himself -they were popular as cop cars back then) confronts Arnie, Christine’s new owner, about how rare his paint color is when trying to question him about the grisly death of one of Arnie’s enemies.  If you didn’t know about the beige thing, you might be wondering how on earth somebody could call red a rare color for that car, because it seems like a typical offering from a car manufacturer.

A 1958 Fury was available with either a 318 cu in. V8 with 230 HP and 340 lb-ft of  torque (260 HP if it had a 4-barrel carburetor), or a 350 V8 with 305 HP and 370 lb-ft of torque.  I would bet that Christine had the 350.  Throughout the movie, we see Christine go through transformation after transformation.  She starts out in really rough shape when Arnie first buys her from the brother of her deceased original owner, though in the book, Arnie buys direct from the owner who then dies.  Arnie fixes her up like new, and from there, Christine goes on a murderous rampage, continually wrecking and rebuilding herself.

In the movie, it is said that Christine was the setting for the deaths of her original owner’s daughter, wife, and the owner himself.  Of course, we see the maiming of the plant worker and the death of another worker at the beginning of the film, then the deaths of several people who have angered Christine throughout the movie, the most notable of which was the main bad guy, Buddy, who dies in a flaming heap on the road after being run down by Christine in fireball form.

I like to think of it like Christine was possessed by an actual ancient Roman Fury and bathed in the red rage of that deity from the get-go.  Anyway, that’s just my wishful back story, and I’m in no way criticizing the direction in which Stephen King took his story, though my personal preference favors the movie adaptation’s version of events.

So, I don’t actually have a ‘58 Plymouth Fury for us to look at today from my personal photo files.  The ’57 Belvedere is about as close as it gets, and really, you ought to be thankful that I didn’t take that in a different direction where I compared and contrasted the ’57 Plymouth Belvedere to the 80’s sitcom, Mr. Belvedere -just sayin’.

What I do have is this one measly photo of what I believe is a ’68 Plymouth Fury III convertible.  So, 10 years newer than Christine.  This one was at Ellingson Classic Cars a few months ago, but I don’t think they have it anymore.  I don’t know the exact specs on this car, though there were a few options available on the Fury in 1968.  First, buyers had their choice of several engines, starting with the economical 225 cu in slant-6 engine with 145 HP (I discussed the merits of the slant-6 in a post months ago about the Plymouth Valiant, if I’m not mistaken).  An improvement over that was the 318 V8 with 230 HP.  Then, there was the 383 cu in. “Commando” V8 with a 2-barrel carburetor and 270 HP.  A step up from that would get the same Commando V8 with a 4-barrel and 330 HP.  Above all of those was the 440 cu in. Commando V8 with a 4-barrel carburetor and 375 HP, which could provide plenty of fury for driving excitement.  This being a Fury III, if I recall correctly, I believe it would have the 383 or the 440 under its hood rather than the slant-6 or the 318.  By 1968, that whole “exclusively beige and gold” thing was long gone and more colors were available to buyers.  I’m certain this paint isn’t original, but it’s entirely possible that this color, or one similar to it was an option at the time.

So, my dear readers, have a wonderful Halloween, and try not to anger the furies.

From Hearses to Jaguar E-types and back around to BMW coupes with Harold and Maude. A post dedicated to my friend, Aesop.

Today's post is dedicated to my wonderful and beloved dog, Aesop, who died yesterday morning.  I wasn't going to write anything today, but found myself awake and brooding around the house in the wee hours of the morning and thought I ought to at least try to be productive.  This is the first post I've ever sat down at home to write where I haven't been able to look over and see Aesop snoozing and snoring on the couch just a few feet away.  The quiet in the house makes my heart ache, and I miss my good boy, Aesop.

You may recall that my last post featured an Ecto-1 replica built from an old Cadillac Hearse.  Oddly fitting, in view of the death I'm dealing with in my personal life -though I don't believe the blog had anything to do with my dog's passing -advanced age (10.5 years -which is ancient for a 170 lb Great Dane) and Addison's disease is what caused the onset of symptoms that ultimately lead to his departure.  -Today’s post picks up where that left off with hearses and Hollywood, and a vehicle that’s neither, but derived from both.

There are a few movies I really love, and one of them is a film from 1971 called Harold and Maude.  It was written by Collin Higgins and directed by Hal Ashby, whose other work I am also fond of -most notably, Being There, starring Peter Sellers of the Pink Panther movies.  If you haven’t seen Harold and Maude, then you should find some way to watch it.  I’ll try not to make too much mention of the plot so I don’t spoil it for those of you who haven’t seen it, but I am going to talk about a couple of the cars from the film in order to lead up to the vehicle I’m actually featuring today.

In Harold and Maude, the main character, Harold (played by Bud Cort), buys a 1959 Cadillac hearse from a junk yard and shines it up to use as his daily driver.  You’ll recall that the Ecto-1 hearse-ambulance/ghost busting mobile from the last post here was built on a 1959 Cadillac Chassis as well.  The Harold and Maude hearse was not a Miller-Meteor modification like the Ecto-1.  Instead, Harold’s hearse was customized by a company called Superior.  As hearses of 1959 go, this was a more expensive builder to buy from than Miller Meteor.  If you want the specs on a 1959 Cadillac, go check out the Ecto-1 post -it never hurts to do more reading, after all, and besides, I don’t want to rehash it so soon after presenting it, anyway.

Harold’s mother finds his chosen means of conveyance unacceptable and has it towed off.  She replaces his hearse with a gorgeous 1971 Jaguar XKE roadster.  The Jaguar E-Type is one of the most beautiful and gracefully designed cars in the history of automotives.  Throughout its production run, they could be had as roadsters, 2 seat coupes, and 2+2 coupes.   They were built from 1962-1974.  Any E-Type would be lovely to have, though the earliest ones are the most valuable and desirable among collectors and aficionados.  Those would be the 1961-1964 models, of which right around 15,500 were made that featured a 3.8L I6 engine with triple SU carburetors capable of producing 265 HP and 260 lb ft of torque.  The very first 500 are the most sought after of these, and they can be told apart from their E-type siblings by their external hood latches.

1965-1967 E-types fall into what’s called Series 1 XKEs.  They were powered by a 4.2L I6 that would be featured in various stages of tuning and detuning to meet environmental standards up through 1971.  The 4.2L I6 came with dual overhead cams and was capable of 265 HP and 283 lb-ft of torque.  The late 1967-1968 models are sometimes called series 1.5’s because they are a mish-mash of modifications made to accommodate evolving safety and emmission standards, and the ‘68s feature looks of a series 1 with interiors of a series 2 (most notably, toggle switches that were deemed dangerous to smack against in the event of a crash were changed to a less poke-your-eye-out variety of switches and controllers).

From the late 1968 E-types on forward, the most immediately noticeable outward difference is the lack of glass cover over the headlights (safety standards).  1969-1971 E-types were considered series 2 and were subject to even stricter emission standards than the series 1.5 -as such, they are the least desirable E-types to have.  1971-1974 was the time for Series 3 E-types, and they featured 5.3L V12 engines that produced 314 HP  and 349 lb-ft of torque.  You can tell the V12 E-types easily by looking at their tail end.  If there are 4 exhaust ports, then it’s a V12, but if there are 2, then it’s an I6 -and if it‘s got 2 exhaust ports AND is a 1971 model year, then technically, it is considered a series 2 in spite of its model year.

1971 was the only year when an E-type could be had with either the I6 or the V12, and in Harold and Maude, the E-type roadster Harold’s mother presents him with is the I6, judging by its dual exhaust ports rather than quad exhaust.  These 1971 I6 E-types are (aside from the first 500 E-types ever made) the rarest of E-types out there, but that doesn’t add much to their value in the eyes of collectors.

Not that any E-type is a bad thing.  I can’t imagine anybody being presented with an XKE of any year not finding it a desirable car….  Unless we’re talking about Harold from Harold and Maude.  After his mother leaves, Harold takes it upon himself to modify his gorgeous new E-type, and one can’t help but feel just a slight bit terrified at the thought of taking an oxy-acetylene cutting torch to such a gorgeous car, as Harold does in the film -by the way, I do not recommend welding while wearing polyester or any type of man-made material that is not flame resistant while operating a welding or cutting torch of any kind -bad example to set for folks, Harold!.

Rest assured, the beautiful roadster that was shown in the film did not actually feel the burn of Harold’s cutting torch…. Another E-type did, though.  Later on in the film, we see the results of Harold’s customization efforts in this form.

Harold turned his E-type into a hearse.  Though it’s not actually built from that lovely little roadster from earlier in the film.  The car used to build the E-Hearse is a series 1 XKE, rather than a series 2, from what I can tell.  A guess would be that it’s a 1968, so it could possibly be a series 1.5, even.

Harold’s hearse-building handiwork is not bad, actually, though there’s a reason you don’t see people converting their E-types into this movie car the way you see folks with old Miller Meteor hearses making Ecto-1 replicas, or people with 1969 Chargers turning them into General Lee wannabes.  An E-type is such a thing of beauty, that, in spite of how cool the E-hearse from Harold and Maude may look, nobody would dream of sullying the purity of the E-type’s form in such a way.  Of course, now that I’ve written that, I’m sure somebody will take up the challenge (not sure how I feel about that -I love the E-hearse, but I love the E-type in its intended form, too).

You might be wondering what ever happened to the E-hearse from Harold and Maude.  It’s gone.  The scene at the end when it sails over a cliff is for real.  They only had the one E-hearse, and they did that scene in one take -during which one of the cameras that was filming at the time froze up, so the footage is grainy and freezes in the movie at one point.  That beautiful custom E-type was destroyed for real and was not salvageable for rebuilding.

So, nobody can have Harold’s E-hearse unless they custom build it and defile the epitome of automotive beauty in the process….  Or can we?  Well, turns out, we can -kind of.  That brings us to today’s real featured vehicle -one I spotted cruising down the interstate this past summer.

Say hello to the BMW Z3 M Coupe.  The designers of this little coupe openly admit that this car’s appearance was inspired by the Harold and Maude E-Type hearse.   These odd little ducklings were available from 1998-2002, and while they may look bizarre outwardly to those not enchanted by the Harold and Maude E-hearse, it is said that their driving characteristics can charm even the harshest critics.

These M coupes carried sticker prices right around $45,000 when they were brand new, and they are sought after enough that pristine examples can command upwards of $30,000 even now, over 10 years after their production run.  They have a 0-60 time of 5.1 seconds courtesy of the gutsy little 3.2L I6 (an I6 under the hood -yet another thing in common with the E-hearse) with 315 HP and 251 lb-ft of torque (European versions have more power, yet).  This one today is even painted black like Harold’s E-hearse.  You can definitely see the similarities between the two vehicles.

I would urge anybody who might be contemplating a custom conversion of an E-type to match the Harold and Maude car to consider instead tracking down and buying a BMW Z3 M Coupe.  They’re both cool in a most peculiar sense of the word.     

Ghostbustin' in the 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor hearse: Ecto-1

Yesterday’s post made mention of today’s car, and it seemed only appropriate to move along to this vehicle after that.  So, who ya gonna call?

Ghostbusters!  Of course.  Like yesterday’s Batmobile, today’s vehicle is a mere replica  -of the Ghostbuster’s Ecto-1.  This one was spied at a car show at the fairgrounds this past summer.  The original Ecto-1 was based on a 1959 Cadillac ambulance/hearse built by a company called Miller-Meteor using a Cadillac Fleetwood Chassis.  Regular readers of this blog may recall a feature from a few months ago involving a ’69 Fleetwood that had been converted into a Monster Cadillac via a home-made lift kit.  So, now we’re up to two customized Cadillac Fleetwoods on this blog.

In the Ghostbusters movie, Ray buys the old Caddy ambulance/hearse for $4,800 and fixes it up, then outfits it with all the neat Ghostbuster equipment.  We have Dan Aykroyd to thank for Ghostbusters in general, but also their sweet ride, the Ecto-1.  The whole works was his idea.  It is said that originally, Aykroyd intended for the Ecto-1 to be black and feature black-light accents.  After it was determined that the black Ecto-1 would not show up well in the scenes in which it would be featured due to the night-time setting, a new design direction was set that included a primarily white color scheme.  The Ecto-1 design and build was handled by a guy named Steven Dane, though, George Barris did make a replica after the fact, so again, he can say he built an Ecto-1, just not THE Ecto-1.

What are the specs on the 1959 Cadillac Miller Meteor hearse/ambulance?  Under its hood sits a 390 cu in V8 with 325 HP and 430 lb-ft of torque.  It has a top speed of 120 MPH (though I’d be surprised to see anybody actually testing that figure in such a rig), and weighs in at 6,000 lbs.  -and that’s before you add stuff like proton packs and P.K.E. Meters.

An original 1959 Miller-Meteor Cadillac hearse came with an MSRP of around $10,500 on up to around $12,000.  I found one for sale online that was in pristine condition, though not dressed up to look like the Ecto-1 for $125,000.  You could buy a Batmobile (replica) for that kind of money!  I’m sure prices on these hearses are a little higher than they would be if there had never been an Ecto-1, but I’m sure one could find an example that’s not so perfect for considerably less money.  An online search found that the original Ecto-1 was offered for sale a few years back for the sum of $150,000, which doesn’t seem too bad considering that the guy who bought the original Batmobile paid $4.6 million for it.  To bring it back again to George Barris from yesterday’s post, a replica of the Ecto-1 built by Barris sold to an auto museum in Florida in 2003 for $55,000.  

But, what about the Ecto-1A?  You know, the one from Ghostbusters 2?  Yes, there was a 2nd movie car, and this one has a pretty interesting story.  Just recently, a group of Ghostbusters fans discovered that the Ecto-1A was sitting abandoned and decaying in the back of some studio lot.  They’re trying to get the studio to sell it to them for scrap value so they can restore it to its full glory.  I say, if that studio doesn’t have any definite plans to fix it up themselves, they should sell it before it falls further into disrepair.  So, there you have it. The Ecto-1 (replica); a hearse outfitted to handle haunting here for us all to oogle in plenty of time for Halloween!