I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

omarman

And it did have a small puncture in the roof from where one of us slipped when playing with a machete. Luckily only the tip went through. Those roofs must have been thin.

D'oh! Stupid decontented Fisher body sheet metal! I think they used to be machete-proof a long time ago. We had a 1950 Chevy bought used in 1953 and passed around the family like a bag of chips until 1977. It was sold for cheap but still running and street legal, etc. Now that old tank could really take a punch - or most any other kid-related attack.

Funny how much car damage can be blamed on the kids or dogs or even girl trouble. "Who's the U-boat commander?"

ab348

LOL... "end of malaise cars..."

Even when the body metal had not yet been reduced in gauge to save weight (and $$$), the era of vinyl roofs could cause no end of trouble. A friend is restoring a '71 4-4-2 at the moment and it is mostly rust-free, except for the areas around the front and rear window openings, which look like they were attacked by a horde of termites. The car had a vinyl roof originally, and the edges of the fabric absorbed moisture and seemingly were always wet, leading to rust, which led to leaks, which led to more rust. A scourge.

berri

I had a friend that had an 80's vintage Monte Carlo years back. The vinyl top would actually flap up in the wind on the Interstate. But I've got to admit it was a tough old thing - never flew off (or took any rusting metal parts with it!).

fintail

That's one thing I like about my fintail - the metal gauge is very old fashioned, like maybe an early 50s American car. It's like a tank you can see it especially in the doors and front fenders.

Funny thing about the mention of the Monte with the loose vinyl top - a friend of mine had the same problem with his 83, this was in the early 00s. He loved that car, I think it has been put out to pasture now though. I've never really owned a vinyl top car.

Mr_Shiftright

spent all his money fixing it no doubt.

uplanderguy

Was that Skylark white with a burgundy vinyl interior, and fairly basic, other than having the V-6? If so, I've been seeing that one for years, or, at least since 2005 I guess, which is when it was finally old enough to qualify for those AACA events.

Andre, I had mentioned to Lemko that I'd be there. Yes, the Skylark was white with burgundy vinyl inside. She said she'd not had issues with the car and partly credited the V6 engine! I will say this, look at what other domestic front-drives were out then...Omni/Horizon, and Escort starting in the '81 model year. I guess the "K" cars for '81, too. The Skylark is downright sexy compared to any of them I think (LOL)! And the Skylark had a mini-version of the big Buick dash...wood-grain and silver background on gauges.

hpmctorque

The problem with the Skylark wasn't its styling or the dashboard, both of which were good for its day, but with that car's reliability and durability. These deficiencies were, of course, shared with all of GM's X-cars. Just because the Ford and Chrysler entries were also poor in these areas is a weak defense for the X=cars.

andre1969

I always liked the notchback 2- and 4-door sedans in general, with the X-body, but didn't care as much for the hatchback styles, or the Citation's awkward "club coupe"

I think the Skylark in particular did a good job at bringing the feel of a luxurious car to this class. The Limited models were decked out like little limousines. The Phoenix and Omega could be trimmed pretty nicely as well, but I don't ever recall seeing a Citation that I'd call ritzy.

Interestingly, the Skylark never suffered the stigma that the other X-bodies did. While sales did taper off in later years, even in 1985 it was fairly popular, with around 90,000 units sold. In contrast, the Phoenix and Omega got dropped after 1984. And sometime around 1983, Chevy started adding a "II" to the Citation nameplate to make you think it was new and improved!

To their credit, these cars did improve a lot in later years. The 4-cyl models were often rated as "average" by Consumer Reports, a rating they were pretty stingy with when it came to domestic cars in those days. I think the problem is just that time passed them by. Plus, the more upscale, profitable FWD A-bodies were on the market by this time, no doubt stealing a lot of sales from the X-body they owed their existence to.

uplanderguy

Even the VW Rabbit was a poor-quality car in those days...adding rust issues to mechanical woes. Even with the recalls, I'd pick an X-car over those other FWD's of the day!

I did like the X-11 version of the '80 Citation Club Coupe when they came out. They always used a silver with red side stripe version in the ads. After '80, I didn't like the X-11's graphics. I will say that in '85 I was quite tempted to buy a new X-11 hatch after the announcement was already out that they were discontinuing Citations. You could get a stick with the V6, which you couldn't with a Celebrity. I was afraid of the resale value (or lack thereof) and ordered a new Celebrity Eurosport two-door sedan instead.

I liked the '85 Citation dash revision, except that I always saw a lump in the dash pad over the radio on every one a couple years later!

I think the Skylark was overall the nicest-executed X-car. The lady at Hershey was the original owner and loved hers. I do know a guy who had a 4-door '80 Citation 4-speed 4-cyl. and he drove the wheels off of it over ten or twelve years he'd had it since new.

texases

As bad as the Rabbit was (my '83 GTI was pretty much fault and rust free after 12 years in Alaska), they were still better than the X-cars, which had huge problems the first several years.

fintail

The notchback coupes and sedans looked a lot better than the football-shaped Citation. I remember in 1996 or so, a childhood friend of mine bought a car in an estate sale - a 1981 Skylark sedan, dark blue on dark blue, nicely equipped, something like 15K miles on it. Unfortunately, my friend was about 17 years old then, and did not treat the car nicely :sick:

uplanderguy

Your '83 Rabbit was in the ninth year of production. Trust me, later X-bodies were better than the first couple years, too.

I do agree about the football-shaped Citations (not very good-looking). The early '80's were odd with some Chevrolet product decisions. No Monte Carlo bucket seats or Caprice two-door in '83; no Citation Club Coupe in one of the early years; all were reintroduced later however.

berri

The initial transition by D3 into FWD was a bit ugly. However, in the early 80's I drove a lot of them as rentals. I have to say from a driving perspective, The GM X cars were still better than a Tempo or K Car. Quieter and smoother - relatively speaking at least.

uplanderguy

I drove a lot of all of them as rentals back then too. OK, I was a GM guy but the dopiest IMO were the K-cars. They may as well have had a label that said "For sale only to septuagenarians". I preferred driving Omnis and Horizons to K-cars.

andys120

I preferred driving Omnis and Horizons to K-cars.

Ugh, the Ks must've been pretty bad. The Horizon might be the worst small car I ever drove.

michaellno

The parents of a friend of mine had a K-car wagon. I remember riding in it to Riverside Raceway (about a 2 hour drive) and was very cramped in the back seat.

The parents also owned a 914-6, so I know they had some taste in cars.

andre1969

The early K-cars were pretty bad, but they improved them a lot in later years. I remember my uncle buying a used '82 Reliant sedan in 1989, for something like $700, from an acquaintance. Said acquaintance also had a '66 Catalina that he wanted $600 for; in retrospect my uncle should have bought that one!

This was an early '82 model, so it had the stationary rear windows and flip-out vents. I remember driving it once, and timed it on a stopwatch. 0-60 came up in something like 26 seconds, I kid thee not! :sick: For comparison, I remember timing my buddy's '80 Accord hatchback, and also got 0-60 in around 26 seconds, but at least it had three people on board...with the Reliant, it was just me.

Out of curiosity, one day I took a tape measure and measured the shoulder room in that Reliant. Believe it or not, it came in at something like 58". However, I measured door panel to door panel, but I don't think that's how they do official measurements. I think the "official" measurement might be taken between the C-pillar trim. But, for comparison, that 58" was wider than my '68 Dart, '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass Supreme, '86 Monte Carlo, and '89 Gran Fury. However, that Reliant might have been a little TOO space-efficient, at the cost of safety. Those doors were paper-thin.

So, they were wide little cars, but came up short on legroom. I think a K-car would be a better choice for 6 short people to squeeze into, whereas a GM X-car was the better choice for 4 taller people.

I remember something went bad on my uncle's Reliant, and he paid $400 to get it fixed, but then ended up unloading it at a used car dealership up the street for $200, plus a ride home. And then soon after he went out and bought a used '88 LeBaron turbo coupe that was a fairly decent car, up to around 90,000 miles. By that time he had sold it to me, and I let my ex-wife have it in the divorce, and by around 118,000 miles it was total crap. It wasn't completely the car's fault, though. The ex didn't take care of it, and it got stolen a few times.

When my Grandfather passed away in 1990, a lot of relatives came for the funeral who weren't familiar with the area. One of them was my Grandmother's cousin from Pennsylvania. She had a 1986 or so Dodge 600 sedan, which was on the longer 103.3" wheelbase. Since she didn't know her way around and was worried about getting lost, she let me drive the car to the funeral home, in the procession, and such. Now, obviously I had other things on my mind that day, but I do remember thinking that Dodge 600 was a decent car. It seemed fairly roomy. I have a feeling that Chrysler managed to put that entire extra 3" of wheelbase into interior room.

fintail

Funny, my dad had a Horizon (4 door) when I was little, and he loved it. Said it was the best snow car he ever had. I also remember him driving on the highway with the speedometer pegged (80mph IIRC). Another car I knew of after my dad finished with it, and by the time it was about 10 years old, it was in the junkyard. Not always the good old days.

texases

"Funny, my dad had a Horizon (4 door) when I was little, and he loved it. Said it was the best snow car he ever had. "

I'll bet that was his first fwd car, quite an improvement over typical rwd cars of the time. I never did drive an Omni/Horizon, but I did follow one with a glowing cat converter - must have been bad, I noticed its glow on the pavement in the daytime... :sick:

fintail

Good point, this would have been in the early 80s when mass market FWD was still kind of new. If snow covered the road, my mom would have chains (made of chain!) put on her old T-Bird and drive it that way til the snow was gone. Last RWD car she owned. My dad didn't even run special tires on the Horizon. I don't remember it ever breaking on him, either...although I do remember it leaked water in the hatch when it was several years old.

berri

I always felt that the Omnirizons reflected their VW and Chrysler heritage - some could be good, some really awful.

Mr_Shiftright

Well it's not fair to look at the 1980s car world with 2011 eyeballs. The 1980s was such a barren desert of creativity and such a collection of misfires, that in this context cars like the Omni were more like the malformed embryos of a much brighter future to come for car buyers.

andre1969

Truth be told, the Omni and Horizon were well ahead of most of their competition, both foreign and domestic at the time, in many respects. On the domestic front we had the Chevette, Monza and its clones, Gremlin, and Pinto. I'm sure that in 1978, the Omni/Horizon made all of them look positively ancient, with its transverse engine/FWD, space-efficient layout, and crisp, modern (if VW-Rabbit-inspired) design.

With the exception of the Honda Civic/Accord and the Datsun F10, the Japanese competition was still RWD and cramped, although they no doubt had an edge in engine and manual transmission technology. Style-wise, they all looked pretty dated, as did anything that wasn't crisp and angular by that time.

I thought the Omni and Horizon aged fairly well, too. By 1990, perhaps, they were getting a bit dated, mainly because cars were starting to go back to more rounded styles again. Still, there aren't too many other small cars that were around in 1978 that would have aged as well, had they been carried on through 1990 with minimal changes.

And yeah, quality was really hit or miss, but it was a solid seller for a long, long time. It probably could have gone on for longer, but by 1990, the market for cars this small was really drying up, and with 4-door cars, buyers tended to go for a notchback.

I wonder if the Omni/Horizon would have sold better if they offered a 2-door hatch as well, that was styled to look like the 4-door? They did have the Plymouth TC-3/Duster and 024/Charger, but those were styled so differently that it wasn't readily apparent that they were Omni/Horizon-based, and were sold as sportier cars, probably a lame attempt to go after the Toyota Celica/Datsun 200SX crowd.

Mr_Shiftright

80s cars in general had "stopgap" written all over them.

tjc78

but I do remember thinking that Dodge 600 was a decent car. It seemed fairly roomy. I have a feeling that Chrysler managed to put that entire extra 3" of wheelbase into interior room.

My Stepdad had an 83 Chrysler E-class (same as 600 I believe) with the Mitsu 2.6. It wasn't all that bad considering when I drove it, it was 16 years old. The interior had held up well and it rode decent. I'm a big guy and was comfortable in it.

andre1969

I can't remember what engine my relative's Dodge 600 had. I think it might've been the turbo 2.2? Regardless, I wasn't exactly in a position to gun it in the funeral procession, or while chauffeuring her around!

She also must have been fairly happy with it, because when she traded it, she bought a Dodge Spirit, which was, pardon the pun, the 600's "spiritual" successor. I don't remember her keeping that one long though, and by 1996 she had a Crown Vic.

I doubt I'd ever buy one, but for some strange reason I kinda like the Dodge Dynasty and its New Yorker/5th Ave counterpart. I also liked the LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer.

fintail

My uncle had an 84 E-class, I remember it because of its odd color combination, kind of a light yellow with a gold interior. I think this car had a hood ornament that was beveled plastic in the shape of the Chrysler star, which I thought was cool when I was a kid. The car was replaced with a first year Taurus, which was a pretty big leap.

tjc78

I think this car had a hood ornament that was beveled plastic in the shape of the Chrysler star

Now that you say that, I'm pretty sure that my stepdad's did too.

The car was replaced with a first year Taurus, which was a pretty big leap.

Certainly in terms of looks and interior, but I've driven a first year Taurus 4cyl and would take the 2.6 Mitsu engine any day over the Ford.

omarman

Funny, my dad had a Horizon (4 door) when I was little, and he loved it.

In the early 80s I drove a rental Dodge Omni and my girlfriend loved it. It had the 2.2 with automatic and A/C but was otherwise pretty basic. The Omni/Horizon was a bit larger than most 4-cylinder econoboxes in the late 70s but when VW replaced the U.S. Rabbit with the larger Golf ('84?) it sort of looked like a rounder, updated version of the Omni/Horizon. For one thing the new Golf wasn't much to look at but was clearly bigger than the first gen styled by Giugiaro. I think that second gen Golf was an in-house VW design, but always wondered what an ItalDesign Golf would have looked like in 1984.

Another thing about the Omni/Horizon aging process...I test drove a new Omni in '89 but was disappointed with it compared to the earlier rental car. By then the automatic trans had been geared for dog-slow economy mode and the interior seemed even more cheap and flimsy than the older rental. Almost like Chrysler was decontenting the basic Omni/Horizon platform even while offering performance versions like the GLH or whatever the turbo thing was called. I ended the test drive quickly and returned straight away to the dealer. A typical base model domestic car was so unappealing that the customer would be "forced" to pile on options just to live with it. Remember the 4-cylinder Camaro? Detroit was still doing a lot of pretending in the 80s.

lemmer

In the middle of a sea of Camcords, there is an MG TD in the parking lot of my office building.

fintail

I remember my uncle's car, it was a grey on grey Taurus L with a V6 and disc hubcaps. It also had a weirdly lit clock that I think might have been only on early cars - we had a couple later Taurus in the family and neither had it.

There used to be a Taurus MT-5 running around town, that's an odd sight anymore. I hope it wasn't the Tempo 4cyl.

andre1969

The 4-cyl Taurus used a 2.5L 4-cyl engine, while the Tempo used a 2.3. I know the Tempo engine was actually the old inline-6 with two cylinders removed, so it could be traced back to the 1960 Falcon!

Not sure where the 2.5 came from. It could be an enlarged 2.3, for all I know.

I still see an '86-91 Taurus every day at work. It's white, and pretty rusty, but the owner keeps painting over the rust with white paint, so it doesn't stick out TOO bad.

fintail

My dad's car was blue on blue, vinyl interior, manual, no AC...not highly equipped, but maybe the optimal level for this area. A little sweat in the summer, but better driveability. He drove the hell out of it and didn't do much more than oil changes I am sure.

I remember before he got the S-10 Blazer he looked at Horizons again, we test drove one that was very plush, velour interior, seemed so quiet compared to the old one. I guess that would have been 1985.

In high school I knew a kid with a 4cyl Camaro, I think it was a "Berlinetta" model. I am pretty sure the Tempo could have kept up with it. Speaking of that thing, it was proof of the cars and option loads. Another kid I knew had a same year Tempo as ours (by then it was maybe a 9 year old car, this would have been around 1994), and it was absolutely bare bones - Tempo L sedan with a manual, vinyl seats, hubcaps, roll down windows, I think it even still had a carb....while ours was a GLX with everything on it. Night and day. The kid I knew actually liked Tempos, and really liked ours... (he also had a Gremlin, so he was a bit of a nut even at a young age).

fintail

I wonder how bad that 4cyl Taurus was compared to a 4cyl Ciera or similar - the latter of which were sadly not uncommon.

ab348

I remember in '84 I rented a Horizon 2.2 and drove it from Detroit all around the midwest - Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati. I remember that it seemed to move pretty good and was fine on the Interstate. I could draft 18-wheelers in that thing and it really was apparent how the draft would suck you up towards the rig's back bumper and would then help you gain momentum when you went out to pass. I remember the interior seemed pretty cheap and the doors thin, but it was a decent driver.

My brother's M-I-L had an '82 K-car, a loaded 4-door, that she barely used. In the early 90s she died and they inherited it, with something like 20K miles on the clock. I got to drive it a few times and it was pretty awful, though it was nicely trimmed. It just didn't drive well and had no power. As was said, the doors were about the thinnest this side of an original Mini.

I don't know what they did to that platform when they introduced the Spirit, but I had a couple of those as rentals and it was far better to drive. It seemed a much better-developed car.

fintail

Good day for oddities this afternoon - pre-86 Saab 900 Turbo, big baroque ca. 73 Cougar, MB W116 that appeared to be on 20-22" wheels (awful), 77-79 Caprice in nice condition, speaking of MG-TD earlier - I saw one too, maroon with a cap and scarf wearing driver, and the oddest, a Porsche Speedster - not a fake or original or 1989 style, but 1994 style.

fintail

My drivers ed car was a Spirit. It was nearly new - my school had 2 cars, the Spirit and an ancient Fairmont with malaisey stalling tendencies. I lucked out.

stickguy

I actually had close relations (wait, that sounds kinky...) with 3 of them.

when I was 17, my parents sold our '69 Volvo and got (I assume) a '79 Horizon. Or was it an Omni? Anyway, strippo base car, 4 speed, no AC, vinyl, etc. White over tan. Think this was still the 1.6l engine (for some reason, I think it was a donor from VW, at least the block). Thankfully, I had a car by then, but it did haul my crap to college! For a small car, you could put a ton of crap in it.

only lasted a few years, and had some serious issue (oil usage I think). So, they dumped it, and for some reason, got another one (blue over tan). Probably an '83 or so? This one had the 1.7l engine, and IIRC was pretty reliable for them. Seemed to be a little nicer equipped. Still a no AC 4 speed.

Then I owned an 84 or 85 (well, I "inherited" it as my wife owned it when we got married). this was a 2.2l AT, and at the time, quite the hot rod! It is also still the single best car I ever drove in the snow. Even on all seasons, it was like driving a snow mobile. Even had a rudimentary "manumatic" since the 3 speed ST had 1,2,3 options in a line, so easy to use the tranny and not the brakes.

Never gave us any trouble (only thing I remember doing was replacing the voltage regulator), but I dumped it pretty quick for a mazda 323 with a stick.

Not fancy, but cheap to run and tremendous space utilization. Nothing beats a box!

bhill2

The 4-cyl Taurus used a 2.5L 4-cyl engine, while the Tempo used a 2.3. I know the Tempo engine was actually the old inline-6 with two cylinders removed, so it could be traced back to the 1960 Falcon!

Actually, the 60 Falcon, at 144 c.i., needed all 6 cylinders to make 2.3 liters. Ford did take the Falcon 6 out as far as 200 c.i. (3.3 L), so 4 cylinders of that one would come pretty close, but I don't know if it still had the original block.

hpmctorque

The Ford 2.5 was indeed an enlarged 2.3. The Tempo/Taurus 2.3/2.5 was an overhead valve design, not to be confused with Ford's 2.0 overhead cam, used as the optional engine in early Pintos, and the newer design 2.3 overhead cam, used in Pintos, Mustangs, Fairmonts, and Mercury equivalents.

hpmctorque

The Omni/Horizon 1.6 was sourced from Peugeot, while the 1.7 was sourced from Volkswagen.

hpmctorque

The Ciera felt more upscale, in my opinion. I rented both, and my mother owned a '87 Ciera with the Iron Duke 2.5. Both the Tempo 2.3 and the GM 2.5, also known as the Tech-4, were very old tech. They were okay cars for the majority of average motorists, in their day. That's assuming you got a good one because, as has been noted, quality was spotty. I'd say these GM and Ford cars met the minimum acceptable standard for their time, if you weren't descriminating. By comparison, the early Camrys (and mid-80s Accords) were much more refined (in terms of NVH), performed better, delivered better fuel economy and were more durable. Any wonder why Detroit lost?

uplanderguy

the early Camrys (and mid-80s Accords) were much more refined (in terms of NVH), performed better, delivered better fuel economy and were more durable. Any wonder why Detroit lost?

I know that is the conventional wisdom, but unquestionably, I see more of the old GM FWD midsizers still around than I see either of the imports you mention.

stickguy

Well, in snow (salt) countries those early Hondas rusted quickly. Might have been built like a Swiss watch, and would run forever, just without a body!

Not sure in the 80s how skewed sales were to the coasts vs. the midwest.

I assume too that there were a lot more GM models sold in those days.

ab348

Our '74 Maverick had the "big" six, 250 CID. Was that a different architecture? I just assumed it was a bored & stroked 200 since they looked similar.

Ford at the time also had a 240 CID and 300 CID six used in trucks.

andys120

There's gotta be an old car show near me today, probably at NHMS because I've seen a lot of oldies on nearby roads but one really stood out, a black AC Ace roadster .

I thought it was a small block Cobra (or a replica) but then I saw there was no curve to the windshield and even smaller bumperettes than on a Snake.
It looked exactly like this one. What a beautiful sight, top down on a nice fall day.

They're almost as rare as Cobras. Wikipedia says there are a few replicas out there. Back in the day we sports car nuts called them "Ace Bristols" after the 2 liter six. It was years before I found out the proper name is "AC Ace".

fintail

Oh, certainly a Ciera 4cyl would be nicer than a Tempo, but compared to a Taurus where it fought in the sales wars, I don't know...the iron duke was no pinnacle of refinement, itself.

hpmctorque

"...the iron duke was no pinnacle of refinement..."

Very true. In fact, the Tempo 2.3 may have been slightly more refined than the 2.5 Iron Duke. I can't comment on the Taurus 2.5, since I never drove or rode in one.

The Taurus chassis was clearly superior to its GM A-body counterparts.

andre1969

Our '74 Maverick had the "big" six, 250 CID. Was that a different architecture? I just assumed it was a bored & stroked 200 since they looked similar.

I used to think that the 250 was a slightly enlarged 240, but it's actually a stroked 200. The 200 has a 3.68 bore and 3.13 stroke, while the 250 is 2.68 x 3.91. The 240 had a 4.00 bore (same as the 302) and a 3.18 stroke.

In the earlier years, the 250 was actually fairly powerful. In 1971, for example, the last year they were rated in gross hp, the 250 had 145 hp, compared to 140 for the 240 and only 115 for the 200. But when they went to net in '72, the 250 was down to 95/98 hp, while the 240 had 103, and the 200 only had 91.

In '73, the big Fords, which were the only cars that had been using the 240, went to a standard 351 V-8, so my car book doesn't list the 240 after that. It may have persisted in trucks though, and I think the big 300 inline-6 was an enlargement of the 240.

The Ford 250 was kind of a dog from '72 on, judging from horsepower at least. It usually ranged from around 90-98 hp, but in '75, for whatever reason, was down to 72! Unless that's a misprint in my book? By 1980, it was down to 90 hp. The 200 put out 91 that year, and even the 2.3 4-cyl put out 88!

I wonder if the 250 simply had trouble adapting to emissions controls, and that kept its power down? A similar thing happened to the Mopar 225 slant six, which was good for around 110 hp net witha 1-bbl carb, until emissions controls strangled it. It dropped to around 95 hp around 1974-75, but by '77 was back up to 100 hp with a 1-bbl, or 110 with a newly-released 2-bbl. For 1980 though, the 2-bbl was dropped, and the 1-bbl plummeted to 85.

In contrast, I don't think Chevy's 250 inline-6 really suffered much as emissions controls were forced on it. It simply got phased out of cars once Chevy's 229 V-6 came out for 1980, and then dropped from trucks around '85, when the 262/4.3 came out.

andre1969

Today, I took my '67 Catalina to a local car show in Rockville, MD. Here's an album of pics I took. It was a perfect autumn day, great for top-down weather. Probably won't be too many more days like this. The show field was a little muddy, as we've had a lot of rain here last week, and a few drivers got a little stupid. One of particular amusement was an old fossil in a Rolls Royce convertible who tried to go out the way we came in, which is a major no-no at this show. The exit is at the opposite end of the field, and after 11:00 AM they close off the entrance. He bullied his way through crowds at the food vendors, got stuck trying to go up a muddy hill, and ended up peppering a few people with mud when he started to spin. Backed up, tried it again, and made another mess. Then, he finally got up the hill, and when he saw that there were orange cones across what had been the entrance, he tried to squeeze through them, and rubbed one against the side of his car.

I don't think I'd put my $500 '79 NYer though that kind of abuse, so I thought it was amusing that this guy would treat a high-dollar Rolls Royce this way. But, a lot of money comes to this show, so maybe to this old coot, his Rolls was the equivalent of my $500 NYer? And, besides, money doesn't always equate to common sense!