"You can't get your degree here."

It's been a complicated semester. I'm studying computer graphics at IUSB in hopes of getting an Associate's Degree. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen due to a rule that I was unaware of. You see, when I started college at IUPUI a couple years ago, I came in as a Purdue student. I then changed to being an IU student for the spring semester. After that, I moved home and started going to IUSB. By Spring '09, I knew that I was going to be pursuing the CGT Associate's Degree on the Purdue side. I'm pretty sure at that point, someone told me to just wait to "transfer" to the Purdue side, so I didn't. This year though, I started asking around about it, and now they are telling me it's too late. You need at least 2 semesters of being on the Purdue side to get the degree, and I have less than that amount left on the curriculum. So the choice is clear: cut my losses, retreat to Indianapolis, and start on the bachelor's degree using what credits I already have. This will likely happen next fall, assuming I can get housing and everything to line up just right.

It's just that... this isn't how I wanted it to end up. To be quite honest, it's been comfortable (maybe too comfortable) living at home with my mom. No rent, no food bills, and I get to have my own large room where I don't bother anyone really at all. No worries about someone breaking into my car. But most of all, I get to be near my girlfriend, Lizziey.

After New Year's, we'll have been going out for a year, which seems crazy. I am incredibly loathe to spend a school year (and quite possibly much more) over a hundred miles away. Maybe it's what I need though. Maybe I need time to figure out why I love her and what it all means without being distracted by the upkeep of a relationship. Sitting alone in my room listening to Pink Floyd, I am content. I'd rather be with her, but I'm fine with the lack of her presence. Can I make it through a school year with only occasional visits? I hope so, because I really can't see any other options.

It was an excellent drive made even better by the fact that I had recently pirated every Beatles album in existence. The landscape rushed by my newly cleaned windows in endless green, brown, and blue blurs. The reflections of treetops could be seen in the mirror finish of my car's newly waxed body. Even the squeak that has recently taken up residence in the rear-left brakes seemed to have taken a vacation so as to ease the agony of me hearing it. The sun slowly tilted it's way westward as my Pontiac and I rushed through the countryside.

The scenery was great enough to make me want to stop at every curve, bend, and lakeside to snap a picture, but for fear of getting bulldozed by a farmer blundering down the road in a high-boy pickup, I only managed to snap these:









The drive got me thinking about something that's been on my mind a lot lately: the demise of GM's Pontiac brand. In a move that I can only find to be utterly daft, GM has decided to appease the communists by killing or selling nearly all of its brands and shifting focus to Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. I don't see anything terribly wrong with the latter part of that, but killing and selling certain brands just seems a bit rash.

For instance, have you ever heard of someone who was just crazy about GMC? Do you often see garages with classic GMC signs, or lots of restored GMC trucks? I haven't. In other words, GMC strikes me as the kind of thing you would buy if you own a business and need some hefty trucks. The problem with this is that Chevy trucks and GMC trucks share the same platforms, and nearly the same bodies. Theoretically, there is no advantage to buying a GMC truck over a Chevy truck except maybe a few options, which I can only assume could be applied to Chevy trucks as well. Thus the problem I see here is redundancy. GM is narrowing it's brands down to what are actually only 3 brands: GMC overlapping with the truck side of Chevy, Cadillac, and Buick.

Or are they? When you think Cadillac, you probably either think Floridian retirees, or pimpmobiles (which were originally bought by aforementioned retirees). What about when you think about Buicks? Soccer moms, right? No. These people are sometimes more ancient than those that drive that Cadillacs. At least that lets you know that Cadillac's nearly-fruitless attempts at a youthful image have brought the average age down from 65 as compared with Buick's 85. So once again, there's a problem with redundancy. Buicks are extremely popular in China. Cadillacs are popular in America. So split them up! Keep both brands, but get Buick out of America. I'm tired of those 15 mph floaty boats polluting the roads and keeping me going just slow enough to not get into high gear. It's like having an itch that you can't scratch. Terribly annoying. So technically, GM has somewhere around 2.5 brands: Chevy-GMC, Buick+/-Cadillac.

I can see the point in getting rid of Saab and Hummer. Saab is just kind of a blah brand. No style, at least not here in America. And Hummer is arguably the most hated brand in the U.S. You want an off-road vehicle? Buy a Jeep. Want something more along the heavy-duty SUV lines? Buy a Land Rover. Getting rid of Pontiac just seems kind of pointless. Why get rid of something known as GM's "excitement" brand? Why get rid of the brand that brought us the muscle car via the GTO, and then continued on to make the best muscle car of them all: the Trans Am? It doesn't add up. I think part of the problem is that they seemed to just fire the entire Pontiac design team after 1997. Go look at the Grand Prix that came out the year after mine, and then look at some of the brand's latest stuff. Notice any similarities? Split grille, no defining lines, and an almost obsessive need to make everything curve and flow in the wrong ways. Meanwhile, you see Ford put out that amazing Mustang back in '03 or '04 I think. Almost anyone can admit, even though it's retro, it's a triumph of vehicle design. Later, the Challenger and Camaro have let us know that America can indeed make a good car. And have you seen the Ford Fusion? Really not a bad car, for just an everyday four-door family saloon.

If Pontiac had just innovated a bit rather than stay stagnant for 10+ years, maybe we'd see GM not only keeping it alive, but maybe even staying out of the hands of the government. To succeed in such a competitive industry, you have to make something that people want to buy. You don't want people to come to your car lot and think "well, that old Bonneville I'm trading in never really fell apart, so maybe another one wouldn't be too bad." You want them to be driving past, and nearly have a crash from being distracted by something so brilliantly new and better than anything that came before it.

Troy

It seems that in the supposed twilight of their existence, the Big Three have pulled out an old shoebox of memories of the good old days; specifically the glory days of muscle cars, horsepower, and low gas prices.


Representing Ford, we have the 2010 Mustang. While there aren't any drastic differences from the past few years of the Mustang, it has seen a bit of a facelift. But aside from that, it became the first major player in this old-school muscle car frenzy back in 2005 with a desperately needed facelift. There was hardly a single redeeming trait in the third and fourth generation Mustangs which were made from 1979 to 2004. Even the second generation was disappointing, but at least it had redemption in retaining much of the sporty lines of the original. It is somewhat disappointing that the Mustang only returned to glory by returning to an old styling pattern, but then I guess that is the way of the muscle car. The basic formula is light body + the biggest, most powerful engine available. Forget about sporty handling.


Representing Chrysler LLC, we have the Dodge Challenger. This is one of the more incredible American cars I've seen, and that includes the past. I guess the Mustang wasn't as much of a surprise because it's around since 1964, and the Challenger was discontinued twice. Once in '74. Revived in '78, only to be discontinued in '84. The most recent revival will probably prove to be the more impressive. Unlike the Mustang, the Challenger pulls out all the stops. The R/T configuration comes with the Gas Guzzler Tax, and that has to speak for something. At its least, it has a 3.5L V6 putting out 250 horsepower, and at its best, the Hemi V8 putting out 376 horsepower.


Last, but certainly not least (in my opinion) is the Chevrolet Camaro, representing General Motors. In classic antiquity, the Camaro and Pontiac Trans Am were both GM muscle cars based on the same body. Because of this, I wouldn't rule out a revival of the Trans Am if GM decides it needs another muscle car. Unfortunately, both of these initially amazing cars eventually became soulless and insulting to their own heritage. Graciously, GM discontinued both in 2002. With the ever-present Mustang and the new Challenger both competing in a market somewhat below that of the Corvette, GM needed a player. More importantly, it needed something with heritage. Of course, that brings us to the Transformers movie, where Bumblebee is transformed from the 1976 Camaro to the fifth-gen concept.

So which of these great cars is the best? That of course is almost entirely opinion. Each have their ups and downs, and all three have no lack of power.

If you're the kind of person concerned about gas mileage, all 3 come with a V6 option which doesn't lack much horsepower, but does provide an economical option (the Challenger's V6 has a rating of 29 highway mpg, the same as my Grand Prix). However, if you're going to buy one of these cars, it just seems wrong to me to have anything less than eight cylinders under the hood. It's the opposite of a sleeper car. You look the part, but can't walk the walk. These cars are not meant to be practical.

In my opinion, the Mustang still lacks something, and I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just feels... cheap. Maybe even fake. Somehow you can tell that most of those body panels aren't metal, when the original was. The Challenger on the other hand is like nothing I've ever seen before. Okay, actually it's like a 1970 Dodge Challenger, which is great since that's exactly what it strives to be. Just look at the grille. It is stunning. The quality of it is similar to that of the Spyker C8 or other supercars. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Camaro. It's grille strikes me as cheap and plastic. In fact, looking at it reminds me of a time I was playing with one of my toy cars when I was little, and a little plastic piece came off. I don't know why I remember that, but looking at the new Camaro's grille makes me think it would fall off just as easy. Fortunately though, that's where the bad taste ends. If I had to go out and buy one with my own money, it would be the Camaro, without a doubt. The Challenger almost strikes me as trying to hard. I'd love to have a poster of it on my wall, but I'm not sure I'd want to actually be seen driving it. Seems to make me think I need a cowboy hat and leather jacket. The Mustang just doesn't have the same youthfulness as the other two. I've seen too many of them being brought in by 50 year old men at my cousin's upholstery shop. Excluding the grille, the Camaro is stunning from all angles. Let me show you what I mean.


It doesn't seem like it's trying to be cool, it just is. Look at those sharp edged taillights.

If this were Top Gear, we'd have this Top Tip: If you want to buy a Camaro, buy the new one, but if you want to spend money on a Challenger or a Mustang, go with the original.

Troy

There are a few words in the English language that I don't pronounce right half the time. One of those words is coupe. Most of the time I say (or think) "coop", but officially it's "coopay". Another word that has recently challenged me is Porsche. Most of the time, I say "porsh", but it's supposed to be pronounced "porsh-uh" or something like that.

So why has this word come into usage lately? Well, it started with the 240Z mentioned a couple posts ago. I was getting pretty serious about looking for one, so I went to my cousin's shop where I used to work a couple summers ago, and talked to him about it. That conversation led into a general discussion of cars, and during it I recalled a memory from my early teen years of walking through his dusty garage looking at the odds and ends everywhere and saw a car shape parked in the corner covered with a cloth. I pulled up the corner and saw the distinctive headlight and curves of what I now know to be the Porsche 911. Back then I just thought it was a nice car. So I asked him exactly what kind of Porsche it was, and he told me it was a 1977 Porsche 911 Targa. He informed me that the Targa refers to the type of roof it has. It's kind of like T-tops in old Trans Ams and the like, but with no bar down the middle; just a removable roof panel. He ended this conversation by saying, "You know, if you'd like to buy it, I'd make you a good deal on it."

Whoa. That is probably the best offer I've ever come across in my nearly 20 years of existence. I wasn't immediately excited about it because I was still really determined to look for the Datsun 240Z (which in some ways could be the better looking car), but as the day wore on, the immensity of what he had to offer was starting to hit me. Instead of having to probably go somewhere and buy a car and then find a way to haul it back, I could buy his. It's here, and he'll help me work on it. It hasn't been run in probably 2 years, but according to what he was saying, it sounds like it shouldn't take much engine work to get it running. He did say that someday down the road it'll need to be gone through because the rings are probably getting worn. The transmission isn't bad, but the synchro is a little messed up. He says it works and shifts alright, it just has a little bit of a snag. Other than those minor inconveniences, the biggest feat will be to do the interior. He said it would be probably a full day's job, but that's really not too bad. The paint also will need to be touched up, and eventually redone via a full restoration. Here are some pics:




Dusty awesomeness.


Not original seats. They'll be replaced.









Now, you might be wondering just how affordable this could possibly be. I asked him how much he would want for it, and after some thought he said he'd probably want to get $7000 out of it. That's on the upper end of my price spectrum (actually about $1000 more than I was readily willing to part with) but is also $1000 below my cutoff point. I've got about half of that in bank accounts saved up from working so far. Sometime next month I'll also get my inheritance from my great-grandpa's estate (not all that much, but it'll put a big dent in the cost of this car), and I plan so far to put it all toward this car. So it looks like I'll have to take out a loan if he wants all the money at once, or hopefully I can work out some sort of payment system with him.

A definite maybe.

Troy

The day has come; one which I once thought I would never come across. My car no longer satisfies all of my cravings. Of course it's still reasonably fast and sporty looking, but... it has an air of mundaneness about it. It's my car and I love it, but it's a Grand Prix. I see other Grand Prixs on the road pretty much every time I drive somewhere.

I think this Top Gear mania has gotten the best of me. One can only watch the three luckiest men in the world slide around a Lotus-designed track in the world's greatest cars for so long without starting to crave some of the action in the real world. It begins with the manual transmission. Somehow it's no longer popular here, so my car has an automatic, but in England, nearly every car has a manual (proper) transmission (gearbox). So I started thinking toying with the idea of buying a second cheap car with a manual gearbox to just kind of play with when I wanted. Of course it would probably have better gas mileage than my current car, so I could actually use it as a daily driver if I wanted.

I started browsing eBay for old Honda Civics and the like and came across something called the CRX. It's an 80's hatchback which many on eBay were labeling Civics. Unfortunately, that's not correct. The CRX was apparently a terrible car; one of Honda's worst. So I passed it on by. Browsing through the Civics, I decided that if I was going to buy another car, it'd have to be at least more sporty than those. I talked to my mom about it and she listed some cars that might be good, and one caught my ear: the Datsun 240Z. One look at it and the prices on eBay, and I was hooked:


[If I could pick, I'd probably have a dark green (or some dark color) one.]

Apparently practicality never enters into the equation here. It's a two seater, and at first that seems like a lot of trouble, but I don't think it would be. Lately I've used my backseat to give people rides home from work, but other than that, the last time I used it was probably Thanksgiving when Sheehan came with me to pick up Duby from college, and I could have done the drive down by myself and been fine in the 240Z. The other possible impracticality is the gas mileage. At this point you might be confused as to what it has under the hood. Datsuns (now known as Nissan) typically have small efficient engines... but it looks like a Jaguar E-Type, so it probably has a V8. Actually it has a straight-6 (made from joining one and a half Datsun 4 cylinders). One seller said you'd get 18 to 22 mpg out of it, while another claimed to average 26 (which is better than I can say for my car at the moment, averaging 23 from warming up and driving a bit more aggressively). All that aside, it looks and sounds like a sports car, and it has a proper gearbox.

So the question is, do I buy it? Or better yet, can I afford it? The eBay listings put it around $5,000, and I might be able to get it cheaper and work with people I know (mostly family) to get it running and looking nice since I wouldn't need it to be completely roadworthy immediately since it wouldn't be my only car. For those prices, I could easily take out a loan and pay it back over time. If I really wanted, I could probably have it paid off by the end of the summer (oh the joys of living mostly expense-free).

To me, this isn't an extravagance; it's an investment. This car will only increase in value over the years as it's already becoming a collector item. And I'd really rather have a sports car now when I'm in my 20s rather than when I can completely afford to and I'm in my 40s or later.

Before any of this even comes into play though, I have to find one. Sadly they all appear to be out on the West Coast.

Troy