Friable Friday

For not the first time: Friable; adjective, easily crumbled or brittle


No, I did not watch the Ravens-Buccaneers game last night. For reasons better left unwritten, I was not in a place where I could watch the game.

I also did not play a playoff game in my computer football league. The game from Wednesday is not really worth writing about. (The AFC West Champions, the 9-9 Las Vegas Lightning, crushed the AFC Central Champions, the 9-9 Louisville Panthers, 39-10.)


I have not really followed this issue much, but I think major league baseball is simply waiting for the World Series to end to announce that the Oakland A’s franchise is moving to Las Vegas. The team and the city of Oakland failed to reach a deal on a project that would include a new ballpark by what was admittedly a soft deadline. I have not seen any updates.

I don’t think MLB (which has now made 87 pension payments to me) wants to upstage the World Series with news of the A’s relocation. Of course, I could be adding two and two and getting six.


To answer something Philip Maynard asked in his last comment, I have not really thought much more about buying a Solstice. I do want to buy a “complementary” vehicle, but that project has been pushed further down in the hierarchy.

If/when we live in a house with space to easily accommodate more cars, however many that may be, I haven’t given up on buying a Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk or maybe something like this:



This is a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado, which was a member of my Ultimate Garage 2.0 published in 2019. At 221 inches in length it would necessitate a garage of “real” dimensions, not Arizona dimensions.

What do I mean? We allegedly have a three-car garage. All of my life I have understood that a garage should be at least 20 feet long/deep, and 10 feet wide for each car. Therefore, a three-car garage should be at least 20′ x 30′. The three-car garage in our second Texas house was 21′ x 30′. Of course, we only had two cars at the time.

Our current garage, however, is roughly 18′ x 28′ and that’s before the stupid lip that sticks out from the wall shared with the house. My Mustang is 188 inches long (15 feet, 8 inches) and barely fits. A 221-inch long car would not fit and our current lot is way too small for me to park a car anywhere on it. Most garages in Arizona are undersized.

We have recently seen a brand new house with a 4-car garage almost 20 feet deep and with no lip, but with an annoying 5-foot high berm in the front that, supposedly, cannot be removed because it’s classified NAOS: Natural Area Open Space. Understand that this berm borders on the street, but is still designated NAOS. We’ll keep looking or we won’t, but we’re not buying that house.

While I left the ’67 Eldo out of Ultimate Garage 3.0, I still love the car and having one would bring back the good memories of riding with my then brother-in-law, usually to various sporting events, in his ’67 Eldorado. As I have written, if I buy another car I want to buy one with some personal connection. An aside: if necessary, I would consider a ’68, but nothing later as I really like hidden headlights.


As always, I welcome thoughtful comments. Thanks.







If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.



Riviera or Eldorado?

First…gelako pertsonarik inteligenteena izateaz nekatuta nago eta horrek ez du axola.

Second…I am not a fan of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but I am also not a fan of de facto socialists who use the politics of envy to garner support. The de facto socialists ignore the facts that between nine and ten million American households have a net worth of $1 million or more and that 80% of American millionaires are first-generation millionaires. Wealth is not something that just exists and is passed down from generation to generation. Resentment and envy of people who are wealthier than you are not a sound basis for public policy, especially since most of those people earned their wealth.


Continuing yesterday’s theme, I would very much like to read your choice between these two cars, both of which were featured in my Ultimate Garage 2.0:


See the source image

See the source image


The top photo of a 1965 Buick Riviera is from while the bottom photo of a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado is fromĀ Hemmings.

Once again, these are two cars that are under consideration to be the companion to my 2016 Corvette Z06. To be clear, I don’t have to have a ’65 Riviera; I would be happy with a ’63 or ’64. Also, I would consider buying a ’68 Eldorado. However, these cars would be my druthers. Also remember that this purchase, which does not have a 100% probability of occurring, is likely at least two years in the future.

Do you really want specs for these two cars? OK…


HP Torque Length Weight
1965 Riviera 325 445 209 4036
1967 Eldorado 340 480 221 4500


The engine output listed for the Riviera is for the base engine. The Riv would fit better in a garage and would probably get better gas mileage than the Eldorado although the Z06 companion will not be driven more than 1,000 miles a year.

One problem with a ’65 Riviera is the price. On Hemmings the least expensive ’65 had an asking price of $22,000 with list prices all the way up to $84,900! On the other hand, many of the ’63 and ’64 Rivieras listed for sale have an asking price under $20,000.

Only three 1967 Eldorados were listed on Hemmings; two of them had an asking price well under $20,000. This is not an Ultimate Garage exercise where the price doesn’t matter. This will be a real-world decision, if the purchase is made at all, so price matters.

OK, which of these cars do you prefer? Right now, only three votes have been cast in the Studebaker debate with the Avanti ahead of the Gran Turismo Hawk 2-1. Please don’t hesitate to vote on both choices.


Some “administrative” details:

Please feel free to “Like” any post by clicking/tapping on the like button. Please feel free to comment AND to click on any (or all) of the related posts that appear at the bottom of each post. Also, please feel free to click on any ad for a good or service in which you have genuine interest. Thanks.







If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.




An Apology To Hemmings

In this post I complained that Hemmings refused to publish my comment about this article. Well, once again we have an example of why patience can be a virtue. They did publish the comment although more time passed than usual between submission and publication. I apologize.


Motor Trend published an article titled, “10 Cars You Won’t Believe Cost More Than A Base C8 Corvette.” Of course, everyone is focused on Mark Reuss’ comment that the base C8 will start at less than $60,000. (His comment that was surprising to me was the C8 will be offered with right-hand drive in the appropriate markets.) Of course, $59,995 qualifies as less than $60,000. More importantly, I doubt many people will buy a 1LT, non Z51 car with no options at all. However, I don’t think anyone will buy a C8 that costs as much as this Toyota:



From that Motor Trend article a picture of a Toyota Land Cruiser. The price of this “vehicle” is listed at…$86,460! NFW! Save the car! By the way, the subtitle for the Motor Trend article is, “This ‘Vette might be the bargain of the century.”

Here’s an interesting photo from


See the source image


Yep, that sure looks like a C8 convertible. Maybe I shouldn’t have shown this photo or my wonderful wife might want to buy one. Just kidding, I think. She really likes the C8, by the way, more than I do.


I’ve written about the difference between stated preferences and revealed (or actual) preferences. When being polled or just in normal conversation, people often say they feel one way about something, but their actions reveal they actually feel another way.

In Ultimate Garage 2.0 I included a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado among the 11 cars. (No Toyota Land Cruisers were included.) I really do love that car and for awhile I would, on occasion, look on websites where “classic” cars are sold to see what a ’67 Eldo would cost.

In the last 2-3 weeks, though, my browsing has almost exclusively consisted of one car: a Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk. I look almost every day at multiple websites to see what a GT Hawk will cost. By the way, I do not look for a 1964 model as I like, for some reason, the rear deck molding that was really only there to cover the grooves stamped into the rear of the deck lid that was added to the GT Hawk’s “predecessor” in 1956. For 1964 a new stamping was made that eliminated those grooves. I looked for a public domain photo of the molding, but was unsuccessful. Therefore, from Studebaker’s 1962-64 Gran Turismo: Final Flight Of The Hawk by Mark James, a picture of the relevant item from a ’63:



I mean if you’re going to have one might as well tell the world what it is, right? Actually, I just think it looks better than the unadorned rear deck of the ’64.

So, what do they cost? I have seen cars that are running listed anywhere from just under $5,000 to over $30,000. According to Hagerty a base 1963 Gran Turismo Hawk has an “average” value of about $15,000. Coincidentally that is the same value they place on a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado.

Anyway, this tangent is about what car really “should” have been in Ultimate Garage 2.0. The GT Hawk has been on the “cars that missed the cut” list in both Ultimate Garage iterations, but maybe it should have been in instead of out. I sure think about it a lot more than some of the cars that were included. At this point I am also forced to conclude that I am more likely to buy one as a companion to my 2016 Z06 than any other car. Of course, that’s not going to happen any time soon, anyway.









If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.


(Sort Of) Frugal Friday or A Lunatic’s Guide To Cars, Part One

Maybe I should change the name of the blog to “A Lunatic’s Guide To Cars.”

My brain possesses a disparate, even dissonant, set of assets and liabilities. As someone who was a high achiever for many years I can’t seem to come to grips with a new reality where that is not the case. This blog is an effort to achieve something of high quality.

An example…oh, a self back patting alert is necessary: while I was Director of Baseball Operations for a major league team the President/CEO walked into my office one day and told me that the Commissioner’s office was having difficulty with an issue regarding interleague play. He said that they had two or three people who had been working on this issue for weeks and that he informed the Commissioner’s office he would bring this topic to my attention. I figured out a solution in about an hour. My neurons may not function quite as well now as they did then, but I can still out-think the vast majority of the population. The fact that I don’t have the “credentials” to prove that to people I don’t know doesn’t change the truth. (The fact that I am way over 40 doesn’t help, either.) False modesty is also supposed to be a sin or if I have to choose between modesty and honesty I’m picking honesty every day.


Creating/writing a post, even about an idea with a known theme, can be very difficult for someone like me who can struggle focusing on one idea. Such is the case with today’s Frugal Friday. So, with no pre-determined path or destination here goes:

This car has been featured in multiple posts and was named to Ultimate Garage 2.0. It is also a very affordable car: the 1967 Cadillac Eldorado.



From this Hemmings listing a picture of a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado offered by a private seller for $20,000. Remember from the Ultimate Garage 2.0 post about this car that Hagerty says the average value of one of these is $15,000. Also remember that the average “transaction” price for a new vehicle in the US is almost $40,000. What can I say? I just love these cars. If we had more garage space I might have one and not to replace my 2016 Corvette Z06. In the last two/three years I have REALLY come to understand how so many people own multiple cars.



From this Hemmings listing a picture of a 1963 Studebaker Lark offered at $9,650. Yes, it’s far from stock (besides the wheels it has modifications like a Holley carburetor), but that’s what keeps the asking price down. How could you go wrong paying less than ten grand?

From Hemmings again comes this beauty:



From the ad: “…original 389 engine and Tri-color Red interior. Stored in a Missouri garage for 45 years. In 2016, the fuel tank was removed and cleaned, new fuel pump and carburetor installed and transmission serviced. New BFG Red-Line Tires. It’s a solid car with only minor rust spots.” The seller, not a dealer, is asking $12,900 firm. If he really won’t negotiate then this is probably not a car for me, but even at that price I think the fun/price ratio is very high.

One could buy all three of these for their asking price and only pay approximately what one new vehicle costs today in the US.

I welcome your thoughts on these cars or on your own ideas for Frugal Friday. Hopefully those ideas won’t be as much in disarray as mine.










If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.




Ultimate Garage 2.0: Car Number Five

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”

– Mark Twain


Last night I had a strange dream. (“Last night I had a crazy dream about a chick in a black bikini.” Anyone remember “Chick-A-Boom” by Daddy Dewdrop?) I dreamt I was a drummer in a band, but I was missing one of my drumsticks and was in a panic. No one had any sympathy for me at all and I had the impression I would be replaced, even at the last minute, if I could not find my drumstick. To use a colloquialism, what’s up with that?!


This car is not making its first appearance in Disaffected Musings so its place in Ultimate Garage 2.0 should not be a surprise.


See the source image


The top photo of a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado is from History of the American Auto by the Auto Editors of Consumer GuideĀ®; the bottom is from Mecum and was a lot offered at their Harrisburg auction in 2017.

What can I say? I just love these cars. I love the styling, the ride, the technology, the luxury. To me, these cars are transcendent. Of course, they were based on the same front-wheel drive platform introduced in the Oldsmobile Toronado in 1966. The Toronado is a fine car, but the Eldorado is in another league, in my opinion. The styling is just so much sharper.

The one pictured at the top reminds me of so many great moments I had riding in the ’67 Eldorado of my then brother-in-law. His was the same color. I just remember being in awe whenever I was in the car even if it was returning from another rained-out Orioles game in 1971. They had so many rainouts that year (well in excess of 20, I believe) that they only played 158 games meaning that four games were never made up.

The ’67 Eldo was powered by Cadillac’s 429 cubic-inch V8 then in its last year at that displacement. For 1968, the engine was increased to 472 cubic inches, perhaps in part to offset the effects of having to meet new government emissions standards that were mandated beginning in the 1968 model year. The 429 cubic-inch motor produced 340 HP, but 480 LB-FT of torque. Even though it had only two doors, the ’67 Eldorado weighed 4,500 pounds so it needed some torque to be drivable. Cadillac produced 17,930 Eldorados for 1967 with an MSRP of $6,277. As a point of reference, and the two cars were obviously not in competition, the base price for a 1967 Corvette coupe was $4,389. The base price for a 1967 Lincoln Continental hardtop coupe was $5,553.

According to Hagerty the average value of a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado is a modest $15,000. Currently on Hemmings four 1967 Eldorados are listed for sale with asking prices ranging from $9,900 to $20,000. For an Ultimate Garage car, the ’67 Eldo is quite a bargain.






If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.


Even A Blind Squirrel…

Finds An Acorn Once In Awhile…So goes a saying. An aside: I loathe squirrels. I consider them to be rats with better PR.

Just as I believe that virtually everything is a tradeoff I believe that no one is right or wrong all the time. That is part of my reason for rejecting blind adherence to ideology.

In general, I believe in individual freedom, individual responsibility and individual accountability. I think all of these must be practiced together. Unconstrained freedom is not freedom, it’s anarchy. I also believe that people should not expect strangers to provide them with a comfortable life without any effort.

That being said, I reject most/many of the policy tenets of US conservatives. For example, and as I have written before, I do not believe that tax cuts are a panacea and I do not believe in a flat tax. I do not believe in confiscatory taxation, either; that is, I don’t think that government should ever take half or more of a person’s/family’s marginal income no matter how high it is, but I think tax rates don’t need to be reduced anymore. I also think that spending more on defense than the next 7 or 8 or 9 countries COMBINED is simply imprudent.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I honestly believe that the ideological divide in the US is intractable and will lead to the dissolution of the country as we know it. Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.


I fully understand how people end up with multiple cars, even adjusting for my ADD/OCD affected brain. I watched an episode of Chasing Classic Cars this morning for the third or fourth time where Wayne Carini takes six or seven cars to the annual Auburn spring sale auction. One of those cars was a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado, like this:

(Photo from

I am very fond of these cars for many reasons and as I am watching the show this morning I start to think, “Hmm, maybe I should buy one of these instead of the 2016 Z06. Maybe I should buy one of these AND the 2016 Z06.” Barring a lottery win I am not going to buy multiple cars at this stage of my life, but I would sure like to do so. You know…one car for driving fast, one car for cruising in style, one rare car for turning heads…


In yesterday’s post I asked the following question: If you have a preference, about what would you rather read, Studebaker/Packard, Corvettes, or something else? I have not received a single answer. If you want to tell me without having it posted in the blog, you can use the Contact form to convey your thoughts. As written in About, I welcome thoughtful comments as a dialogue is almost always better than a monologue.




If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.



Usually no real reason exists that explains why I have written about a given car on a given day. Hey, that’s just me…

See the source image

From a picture of a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado. These were based on the same platform as the Oldsmobile Toronado that was introduced in 1966 and that was the first real front-wheel drive US automobile since the Cord 810/812 of 1936-37.

My former brother-in-law had one of these when I was much younger and I drove in it many times. I LOVED that car. It seemed so smooth, so luxurious and so powerful. I still think it looks magnificent.

Only in 1967 the Eldorado was powered by a 429 cubic-inch V-8 rated at 340 HP but a whopping 480 LB-FT of torque. (The next year the Eldorado received Cadillac’s new engine, 472 cubic inches, 375 HP, 525 LB-FT of torque.) Despite weighing about 4,700 pounds the 1967 Eldorado could accelerate from 0-60 MPH in a little over 8 seconds.

Just one life, but so many cars…