the misanthropologist

We're not worthy.

2010-02-12T00:19:00.000-08:00

Here's something special: 1956 Lancia Aurelia B24 Spider.

and rear:

with hard top:

sigh.

Monterey Historics 2009

2009-10-07T00:55:00.000-07:00

Made it to the Monterey Historic Races this year -- featured marque was Porsche! The races were pretty cool, but the most fun was had walking around the parking lots.

These pictures are from the special Porsche parking area. It was so enlightening to be able to see so many generations of these cars, side-by-side!

This was the first time I was able to contrast an early t2 body-style with a later t6 bodied car. Check out the differences:

I've mentioned before the subtle differences in body style. The most notable is that the trunk lid on the newer t6 is wider and flat at the front, whereas that of the older t2 comes to more of a rounded point. The bumpers clearly changed dramatically. Harder to notice is the positioning of the headlights. On the t6, the headlights are at the end of the front fenders -- they follow the natural line of the car. On the t2, the headlights are actually positioned downward a bit, as the front of the fender slopes forward toward the ground. It's hard to tell in this picture, but the t6 body type also has a gas cap on the outside of the car, whereas with the earlier models you have to open the hood and pump the gas directly into the tank.

The biggest difference on the rear of the car is the size of the rear window -- wow, look at the improved visibility on the later model! From afar, the dual grills on the deck lid is a sure-fire give-away as to body types.

And check out how small they look! Granted, at 6'7" I'm a little big for a sports car. But trust me, I've been in a couple now and with a few slight modifications, I fit just fine.

Irish green! Good color.

Giulietta Review

2009-03-19T19:22:00.000-07:00

Thought some of you might enjoy this recent article on the history of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta, otherwise known as Kelan's #2 car, if the Porsche 356 Notchback falls through.

Honestly, I think I like the early Giulietta Sprint better than the regular fastback 356. Weird!

Not(ch) that Aerodynamic

2009-03-03T23:37:00.000-08:00

Though the basic design of the Porsche 356 remained the same over the decade of its production, minor changes in the body are evident to the discerning enthusiast. The earliest 356s, made in Porsche's first, tiny, factory in Gmund, take the design to its extreme -- sacrificing aesthetics and cargo space to aerodynamics.

Basically, the car was shaped like a drop of water: the shape most efficient for a liquid to take when traveling through air. A problem with this is that, when someone asks me to imagine a generic "car," I picture a Volvo 240.

I don't want a car shaped like a rocket. I don't want a car shaped like a teardrop. I want a car that looks like a car. Especially if I'm going to drive it everyday.

So, yes, it's a Notchback for me. Case closed.

But I was thinking. What does the regular 356 remind me of? I was looking at a picture of an early, aerodynamic Gmund-era 356 when it suddenly struck me: it looks just like a time-trial bicycle helmet! It's the sort of thing that makes hard-core cyclists drool in appreciation, and that makes everyone else in the world ask, "what is on your head?!"
I understand the appeal of each. But when it comes down to it, I want something I can drive to work every day.

Notch wins again!

Worst Best Car

2009-02-26T20:16:00.000-08:00

This weekend I drove my first 356. !!! I was down in Monterey this weekend and my brother told me that he'd been driving past a used-car place that had classic Porsches. So we swung by.

They had two 912s and, tucked in the back, a red 1961 Porsche 356 t5 Notchback. Now, the t5 is the earlier model of Notchback and not the one I covet. I thought I'd check it out anyway, because how often do I get a chance to put my grimy hands all over a 356? Especially a Notchback??? Only 1,400 of these were ever made, less than 2% of the total run of the Porsche 356.

Long story short, I took it for a test drive, and it was the worst car I've ever driven. The carburetors would stick, so that when I pushed on the gas, in neutral, the engine would stay at the higher revs (instead of the lovely "vroom-vroom" sound). The brakes were so soft I had to push the pedal to the floor to even begin to slow down. I could hardly find first gear, and once I did, I could wiggle the stick a foot in every direction. And let's not get into the steering.

All in all, it was horrible. But at the same time: so exhilarating! I was behind the wheel of a 356 Notchback!

First: I fit! There was enough leg room, my head cleared the ceiling, and I could easily see out all the windows. I'd need to swap in a smaller steering wheel, because the stock wheel is too close to my legs. The stock stick-shifter requires me to smash it into my knees in order to get into reverse, but it's easy to swap in a shorter stick. I'd also mount the rear-view mirror on the dash, instead of the windshield, right in the middle of my line of sight. All in all, easy mods.

I wish Erik has taken pictures. He said I looked great. I'm sure the ear-to-ear grin helped.

-----
Aetna Blue makes these cars look good:

check out the clearance between the steering wheel and the seat!

A sight for sore eyes

2009-02-24T21:22:00.000-08:00

After 8 years of he-who-must-not-be-named, it is just such a breath of fresh air to see this picture:
These are the three people I want to be in those positions. Now, I don't think Pelosi has been amazing, but she's been tough in a role that requires toughness. I'm proud that I voted for these three figures.

And boy, it's nice to have an intelligent President! There's something about not sounding like an imbecile that inspires confidence in a leader.

-----.
(aside: I'm not-so-secretly happy that Harry Reid isn't pictured above. what a schmoe!)

Notch Out of Reach

2009-02-20T20:21:00.000-08:00

The supposed "perfect" Porsche 356 Notchback sold within 24 hours of being posted on Craigslist. It sold even before the seller could email out pictures, to a list of at least 20 of us. For $15k, it was a great price for an all-original car.

Thus, I'm still holding out hope for a cheap 62 Notch. I'd be more likely to be successful if I was willing to pay $30k, as that's the median price. Even then they're still hard to track down, as so few were produced (about 680 total). Unless I find one for under 8k, I'll just keep coveting quietly until I've got a spare 30 grand lying around that I don't need for, you know, paying off college loans or buying a house or not starving during the global economic meltdown in 2010.

Check out this Notch for $33,500:

Man, I love how these Notchbacks look from behind. This one is from a well-known and reputable purveyor of classic Porsches, down in sunny So-Cal. I've always been a bit "miffed" at them because once they grabbed a car I found listed on AutoTrader for $5k and immediately posted it on their website for $12k. Bleh.

That's another reason why that last car, the 15k one, was such a rare find. One-owner cars are pretty hard to find after 40 years, and the owers are not in it to make a quick buck. My goal is to find some guy who wants an "open adoption" arrangement, where s/he'd give it to me for less $$ in exchange for knowing I'd take good care of it, and I would let 'em drive it every now and then.

In conclusion:

I've never liked the reflectors above the rear lenses. I've seen them re-positioned under the bumper, and that's what I'd do with mine. These cars sit so low that it's a good idea to jerry-rig a center brake-light on the inside-top of the rear window. They make units 1/2" tall by 5" wide, so they don't obstruct the view, while letting the people behind you know not to careen into your tail. Seems much more useful than rear reflectors that just stick out awkwardly from the otherwise svelt curves.

Perfection

2009-02-14T00:41:00.000-08:00

Found the perfect car yesterday

Albuquerque, NM

1962 Porsche 356 t6 Notchback with a Super engine

one owner since new

driver-quality. runs and drives.

well-maintained over the years, with an engine rebuild, 12-volt upgrade, new-ish shocks, paint re-spray, new-ish clutch, new-ish generator

just a little rust in the battery tray, per usual, but a replacement tray comes with

original tool kit, spare tire -- everything as delivered 46 years ago

$15,000.

good lord.

Car Number 2, where are you?

2009-02-07T00:04:00.000-08:00

The search for the elusive under-priced 1962 Porsche 356b Notchback continues. Seeing as how I have no money for the car, and no where to park it, that's just as well. The journey is more fun than the destination, or so I'll believe until I'm cruising the PCH in my blue '62 Notch.

In the meantime, I believe I've found Car Number 2: a back-up car for when I've exhausted that week's Porsche classified ads, or when I lose all hope of finding Car Number 1.

I've posted about it before: 1954-59 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint. With classic Italian styling by Bertone, this was the first major production car by Alfa Romeo. Story goes, a bunch of Alfistis were sitting around a bar in Italy, thinking of their company's next move, when a guy walks up and jokes, "What, 5 Romeos and no Giulietta?" (Basically, the literati equivalent of calling it a "sausage fest.") In response, the Alfa guys dreamed up this beauty. In fact, Bertone's website claims that it was this body design that launched their company into the big leagues.

It's easy to see why: simple 2+2 design, nice curves, small tail fins, just enough chrome. With a front-mounted 1290cc four-cylinder engine, it's capable of 80 bhp, besting the 356 in power if not in top speed or handling.

Also attractive to me is the sticker price: whereas classic Porsches are currently over-priced, these classic Alfa Romeos are surprisingly under-priced. This may be explained by the large number of Giuliettas produced (40,000+), and the wide range of body styles. The "Spyder" convertible is a hot commodity, and the "Veloce" is this same car, but with some aluminum body panels to reduce weight. The desirability of these versions means a lower price for the normal "Sprint."

Check out this 1955 Giulietta, which sold for $23,000 recently. It's in perfect condition for me: straight, no rust, runs well but hasn't been restored. If it were 1/2 as nice at 1/2 the price, I'd forsake my Porsche dreams and become an Alfisti already.

The joke may, however, be on me. The huge demand for the Porsche 356 means readily available spare parts, how-to books, knowledgable mechanics and the awe-inspiring assistance and comraderie available at the 356 Registry. Becoming an Alfa Romeo owner probably means becoming close friends with my local classic import specialist, a thought that sends shivers down the spine of my wallet.

Still, it's a 50s car, so the mechanicals can't be that difficult to figure out myself. After some basic sorting and then consistent TLC, I'm sure it could provide years of happiness. Plus, it's got a useable trunk!

It's hard to argue with an Italian racecar. Especially one that'll fit (future) kids. As always, if you have one for sale, please contact me!

-----.

UPDATE:

Check out this amazing video of an early-model Giulietta in action! Also: Barbara says she likes the Alfa over the 356 ... maybe that's a green light?

um ... "boo-yah"

2008-11-14T16:21:00.001-08:00

And the winner is ...

2008-11-09T23:10:00.001-08:00

The votes have been counted, the results are in, the election's over.

I know many of you have been waiting.

Holding your breath.

Hoping.

And now the answer is here:

Let me present to you my DREAMCAR:

The 1962 Porsche 356B T-6 Notchback

“It all started when I began looking around and just could not find my dream car. So I decided to build it myself,” explains Ferry Porsche of his decision to build the 356. I don't have the wherewithal to build my own, and so I was forced-- forced!-- to look around for one.

My long-standing favorite, the 1963 Volvo p1800S, held the title for many years. This was due to two factors: First, I always assumed that the coolest cars were prohibitively expensive. Second, the p1800 was originally chosen because of brand loyalty to my first (and to date most beloved) car, and I had never seriously questioned my teen-age choice.

When my father, through fortuitous circumstances, came to own a non-running 1967 Porsche 912, both factors favoring the Volvo came crashing down. I have always been drawn to the curvy European 1960s automobile aesthetic, and I began looking around at others besides the Volvo.

Of them all-- the Morris Minor, the MGA, the Alfa Romeo Sprint-- the Porsche 356 has triumphed. It has the best lines, the best reputation for quality, the best racing record ... And importantly for a sociologist, the best community of afficionadoes.

I'm a sucker for uniqueness, and so when I heard of the limited-run of Notchback cars produced by Porsche from 1960-62, my interest was piqued. I have long held a distaste for "fastback" cars, since I first saw two 1965 Ford Mustangs back-to-back:

Though my dad disagreed, feedback from friends and my wife have convinced me that my natural inclination should stand: weighted for my wife's vote, my blog poll has steered me where I wanted to go anyway. Notchback!

To complicate matters, Porsche released a Notchback 356 during the 1961 and 1962 model years, during which time a stylistic shift occurred. Though the mechanicals stayed the same, the body was modified. An additional vent grille was added to the rear lid. The front hood was squared off. A gas filler was set into the fender, precluding opening the front hood to fill the tank. The rear quarter windows pop-out. The rear window is wider, allowing for better visibility.

Notchback
--->

twin grill
--->

I think that the twin-grilles look more symmetrical, and not having to open up the hood to fill up the tank is a big bonus, especially because the hoods on 356s are notorious for "kink"ing when closed incorrectly.

Also, I prefer even-numbered years. 1962.

There were three engine models available for the 1962 Porsche 356B t-6 Notchback: the Normal, the Super and the Super 90. The most powerful, the Super 90, can be used for racing, and is too powerful for daily driving. The Normal is good, but seems too ... normal. The Super has enough "umph" to remind you that even though it's 40 years old, you're driving a Porsche!

So the major decisions have been made. Unfortunately, 1961 was the last year Porsche painted its cars my favorite color: Aetna Blue. An Aetna Blue car with a red interior looks sharp. Alas, the color was discontinued.

In 1962 the best color is Oslo Blue, which has a nice grey tint, but is ultimately too dark.

I think I would have to rebel and paint my car in Aetna Blue. This is actually a benefit for me, because I don't have to worry about buying a perfectly-colored car. It doesn't exist! I'd have to paint it myself.

And so there you have it. Only 1,048 of these cars were made from late 1960-1962, so there were probably only 500 of the 1962 t-6 model. Maybe 1/3 of those had the Super engine. We're talking 175 ever made.

The Notchback cars exist in the first place because Porsche had too many convertible bodies, and so they welded hard-tops on them, to sell as coupes. Apparently they were also toying with the idea of selling a hard-topped coupe, and the Notchback was supposed to test the market. Over the years, many of the Notchback models have had their tops cut off, as it's a convertible-bodied car afterall.

So, finding a 1962 Porsche 356B T-6 Notchback with a Super engine may be difficult. Luckily for me, most other 356 fans, including those back in 1961 and 1962, preferred the fastback over the Notchback. And so the Notchback has always been cheaper than the more popular fastback. So I have that going for me.

I do suffer from a bit of liberal guilt at the thought of owning a Porsche; owning a Volvo put me squarely in my favorite stereotype (latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ...). Only rich jerks own Porsches, right? But I've found some of these cars for less than $10,000, and decent drivers for under $20,000. That's about the price of a used Honda. Plus, the 356 gets around 28mpg. It's not a Prius, but it's pretty good.

And so, now, I have a dream. I mean, ever since what's-his-name won the election, I have to have something else to yearn for, don't I?

1962 Porsche 356B t-6 Notchback. If I can find one for under $15,000, I just may have to sell my soul. Or my baseball card collection. Or my plasma. Not my books. In any event, I'd do a lot to own one.

The end.

People vs. Policies

2008-10-22T00:34:00.000-07:00

Only today did I realize the major difference underlying the campaign ideologies of McCain and Obama. Simply put: the McCain campaign believes that politics are about people, whereas the Obama campaign believes that politics are about policies.

This is, of course, overly simplistic. Plus, it is more of a discursive analysis that an indication of any one individual's ideas or motives. But I think that it plays out.

On the McCain side: We have heard again and again how McCain and Palin are a "team of Mavericks," and that McCain has not won the (rhetorical) "Miss Congeniality" award in the Senate. The narrative on Palin is that she shook up politics in Alaska, "taking on her own party." Individualism and individuality are the central themes of this discourse.

Negatively, the same message comes through. The McCain campaign has recently attacked Obama on his personal associations, and has asked, "Who is Barack [Hussein] Obama?" One of McCain's favorite "attacks" is that Obama "votes with his party" more often than McCain does with his. What is important with this charge is not the merit of the policies under question, but rather the use of Senate votes as a test for personal independence. McCain attacks "that one," and mocks Obama for being popular.

On the Obama side: It took me a while to figure out why Obama would continually trot out the lame "This election isn't about me; it's about you." My name isn't on the ballot. I won't have the nuclear codes. But in the stump speech Obama follows this line with a list of federal policies that would impact my life.

Negatively, the same message comes through. For the most part, the Obama campaign has been careful not to impugn McCain's character. They call him a "hero" over and over. When McCain asserted during the third debate that he is "not Bush," Obama pointed out that McCain "voted with Bush" 90% of the time. Obama is not saying that McCain acts like or thinks like Bush. Rather, he and his campaign repeatedly refer to "failed Bush-McCain policies."

There are, of course, counter-examples to this simplistic break-down, such as Obama's description of McCain's behavior as "erratic," and McCain's recent claim that Obama's policies will lead to socialism. But for the most part it rings true.

There's really no other way I can make sense of the discourse surrounding Sarah Palin. Her lack of knowledge of federal-level public policy is a non-issue; instead she pledges to take on lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

This difference in campaign discourse echoes the infuriating, now-cliche trope that people voted for W. each time because they would rather "have a beer with him" than with the other guy.

Update

2008-10-12T18:33:00.001-07:00

Update on the $4,000 car in the last post:

I said that it was crazy cheap.

It was sold within 3 days of being posted for sale.

A week later, and it's now up for sale by its new owner for $10,000.

Cheap and Unattainable

2008-10-07T23:49:00.000-07:00

I found a 1964 Porsche 356 in Los Angeles for $4,000. It was a "project" car, but straight and rust-free. Everything was there, including the original engine. It was primer gray and needed a lot of work, but was a diamond in the rough.

My researches have led me to believe that this is exactly what this car should be worth. There is a market "bubble" for these cars right now, and they are selling for at least double what they should-- what they did sell for 2-3 years ago. An increase of 100% in 3 years is well above inflation.

What I'm saying is, I'll have to wait until the bubble bursts before I can buy one of these "dream" cars. This is too bad, as the best thing about the 356 is that, relative to other classic sports cars, they are/were within the realm of affordability. For instance, check out this amazing 1967 Jaguar XKE roadster for the low price of $42,000-- actually a really good buy.

By contrast, in a normal, un-inflated time, one can buy a decent, drive- able 356 or a new Honda Civic for $17,000.

So anyway, this poor guy in LA didn't realize that the market for these cars are over-priced right now. He sold it within a couple days of posting it, for what it should be worth ($4,000), instead of what comparable cars are selling for these days.

Actually, the closest I have found to this LA car is this piece of crap, selling for $15,000. Without an engine or trans- mission. Ha!

The Forgotten Bubble

2008-10-04T00:24:00.000-07:00

I've heard a lot recently about the economy, as I'm sure you have. Unlike Sarah Palin, I think that it is important to understand the cause of something, in order to understand its solution.

I worked in the mortgage industry for a year after college and I listen to the news an awful lot, so I feel like I know something about what's going on. Let's see if I can put together what happened.

A short history of the current economic debacle is this: Around the year 2000 the economy was faltering, so the Fed slashed interest rates, to try to get people to borrow money, spend it, and thus keep the economy going. In 2003 interest rates dropped about as low as they possibly could go. We're almost talking 0%.

People who never before could have afforded a mortgage were able to get one. Sometimes they got an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (we called them ARMs), where the rate starts low, then jumps up after 3-5 years. I asked my boss, "why would anyone get these?" She replied: "people only get these if they plan on fixing up their house, and will sell it in less than 3 years, when the cheap rate expires."

Some other people applied for a "no-doc" mortage, meaning "no documentation" of their income, assets, etc. I asked my boss, "why would we ever lend money to someone, without verifying that they have a job, or any money whatsoever?" She replied, "Interest rates are so low that we make all our money from closing costs. All we need to do is close the sale, then we'll sell the mortgage to another bank."

This gets to the next big aspect of the crisis: Banks bought the mortgages as a form of long-term investment. Generally speaking, a 20-year mortgage, with interest, means that the owner of the mortgage (the bank) will get a steady stream of cash from the home-owner for 20 years. This is a pretty safe, long-term bet.

To make it even safer, other banks would offer insurance on the mortgages. So, one bank would take out a policy from another bank, insuring that the home owner would keep paying the mortgage. If the home owner defulted, the insuring bank would pay the difference. This made the mortgage owner (the first bank) even more safe. The insurers (the second bank) figured that people would always pay their mortgages.

Three years came up, and "oops." Those "no-doc" loans? Bad idea. With such a crappy economy, even good home owners couldn't afford their mortgages.

Now: understanding the problem. Where to place the blame? The home buyers, or the banks? We've heard this a lot recently. For instance, during the Vice Presidents' debate, Palin and Biden were asked who was to blame: predatory lenders, or over-reaching home-buyers. The answer is always, regardless of the respondant, "both."

Sometimes you'll get people talking about how there was no regulation on the (first) banks, to ensure that they weren't lending to people who couldn't afford a house, nor on the (second) banks to ensure that they weren't insuring bad mortgages. Bush, McCain, and conservatives in general and in toto are to blame for this lack of oversight.

But so in all this talk about deregulation, greedy banks, and over-reaching home owners who were buying houses they couldn't afford, what you don't hear often enough is why these people couldn't afford their houses. And the reason for that is that is the housing bubble.

We used to hear about this bubble all the time. The price of houses was and, largely, still is, astronomical in places like California. Sarah Palin, during the debate, said that people would buy a $300,000 house, when they should have bought a $100,000 house.

The problem is, there were no $100,000 houses.

Which means that the true problem was that, in this market, people were buying houses at all. Unfortunately, home ownership is part of that great thing we call the American Dream, and was encouraged by people like President Bush talking about the "ownership society." The whole time, the price of houses was (and still is) laughably high.

For my part, I want the bubble to burst. More. I want the price of houses to hit rock bottom. I understand that this will mean that a lot of people, who have put a lot into their houses, will lose a tremendous amount of money. But it also means that regular people can own that thing in which they sleep at night. They can achieve the American Dream.

Currently, people throw away 1/3 of their income every month. Rental owners make money simply by holding a piece of paper, the title to the house. Sure, they have certain responsibilities, but for many of them it's still a feudal relationship. And I don't mean this metaphorically. There is a reason why we call them "slum lords."

Tangentially, I've never understood why someone would put money into a house "as an investment." An investment is literally only "worthwhile" if you cash it in. Which means that this investment, to be worth anything to you, requires you to become a renter again.

This might work great for people resigned to spending the rest of their days in a retirement home: they can sell the house and use the cash to pay for room and board. But for the vast majority of us that don't want to end up in a "managed care facility," the equity one's house is off-limits, good only for borrowing against (which will still need to be paid back, at interest and at the risk of losing one's house!). If you use the equity from one house to buy another, you've simply shifted your savings from one investment to another.

On the other hand, if the price of your house falls, you are no worse off than if you had been throwing your money away renting the whole time. Even if your house becomes worth less than what you owe on it, this just means that you have to "throw away" money to a bank, on a house that will take you a little while longer to own outright.

Poll extended!

2008-09-19T00:27:00.001-07:00

OK so I just figured out how to extend the end-date on the oh-so-important Fastback-vs-Notchback poll. I'm trying to figure out how to modify the results, as someone told me he preferred the Notch, but he didn't click the button. Please, everyone, click the button! It's super-important.

So, as of September 19, the poll stands at 4-Fastback, and 3-Notchback.

Importantly, one of those in the Notch category is my wife, whose opinion, frankly, matters more than yours. I haven't decided yet on how much to weight it. But it has swung me over to 51% for the Notch, whereas before I was probably 60% Fastback (as you could tell by my calling it "sporty" and calling the Notch a "family sedan").

---

In other fascinating car news, today I ran across this 1955 Alfa Romeo Sprint. It had been on-sale for $29,000, but with no takers, it is now on ebay with a current bid of $14,000. Usually I don't go for these sorts of things, but that's primarily because I don't know much about these sorts of things.

Some quick research, however, shows that this is in fact a crazy-awesome car, and in pretty good condition. It's cheaper than the Porsche 356, too.

Check out the tail fins! and the stand-alone headlights (i.e., not integrated into the hood or front of the car).

<--- fail.

I'm a sucker for any car that has needless bumps in the front and the rear. Plus, a little chrome for pizazz. And I guess these cars are wicked fast, too. Alfa Romeo is known for being a high-end, race-car-type company. Sorta like Porsche.

So if nothing else, my futile search for a cheap 356 is exposing me to really cool other cars that are, well, still out of my price range.

---
update: Just found another one of these Alfa Romeo's on ebay here. The condition is exactly the type of project I'm looking for: no significant rust, straight, and complete. And it's priced accordingly. Right now it's up to $2,000.

Reality Bites

2008-09-15T23:41:00.000-07:00

Le sigh.

I almost started this post with "So I just ran across this ad for a 356..." but then I realized that, well, I've been scouring the 'net for such ads, so the flippancy of that introduction would have been misleading at best. In any event:

So I just ran across this ad for a 356. According to the description, the car sounds amazing. Too amazing, in fact. It's a "numbers matching" car, which means that all the important original parts are accounted for, such as the doors, hood, engine, etc. They left the factory with numbers on them, so you can verify. Classic Porsche enthusiasts care about such things, and it really drives up the price. Do I care about such things? No.

Which is the main problem with this car: not enough is wrong with it. How can a fix-it type guy (i.e., me) expect to get one of these cars for cheap, if the decent ones are all in good shape, and the basket-cases are way too basket-casey? Where is the happy middle ground? The perfectly-restorable-but-not-too-bad car?

So why would I post this car, alone amongst all other too-expensive cars? Because this car is actually reasonably priced. It's on sale in SoCal for $13,250. More representative of the market for these cars is this one in similar shape, on sale in NorCal for $28,000. So what's wrong with the pretty red one above? Nothing. It's simply priced where it should be.

According to Porsche lore, these cars used to go for 1/4 as much as they do now. Currently, it's almost impossible to find one under $20,000, with the usual range being $35-65,000. Four years ago, by contrast, you could pick one up for $10,000. In 4 years the price has quadrupled.

Luckily for me, I can't afford one at any price. So I'm forced to wait until the market for these fine automobiles pulls a Lehman Bros, and I can buy one off some unemployed Merrill Lynch chump. In the meantime, I'll keep searching the web, hoping I can scam some little old lady out of "oh that old thing?" she only uses on Sundays to drive to church.

Speaking of old ladies, I recently ran across this picture of Janis Joplin's old Porsche 356, which was on display at the Whitney Museum's "Summer of Love" Exhibit. Sadly, I didn't get to see it in person.

<----the front

And this one of the rear ...

Don't believe it was hers? Here's a pic on her on it, in front of the San Francisco Palace of Fine Arts.

When I finally get my 356, I'm TOTALLY going to re-create this picture.

Maybe without the hat.

McCain...

2008-09-13T00:02:00.000-07:00

..."would rather lose his integrity than lose a campaign"

'nuff said.

Which Witch?

2008-09-10T21:58:00.000-07:00

Hey faithful misanthropologisters! I've noticed that when I blog about politics, my viewership jumps to 20, but when I blog about cars, it drops down to 4. I'll try to keep it every-other.

Today, I need your help in answering a question. It's about cars. Feel free to click "back" on your browser. Or read down to my last political post.

Long-time readers of The Misanthropologist will know that I'm a little obsessed with the Porsche 356. Mostly, because it looks like a VW bug while also being sporty and fun to drive. But here's a question for us all. Which is better:
the coupe, the convertible, or the Notchback?

The first two are pretty easy to differentiate. The last one, the Notchback, is so called because the Karmann factory welded hard-tops onto the convertible (aka "cabriolet") bodies. So instead of the gentle slope of the regular fast-backed 356 coupe, there is a "notch," where the body hits the hard-top.

Some collectors prefer the Notchback, because it's rare, but also because it's really easy to un-weld the hard-top, and turn it into a (more-rare) convertible. Others just think it looks weird, disrupting the natural flowy lines of the car.

I'm not sure what I think. Here are two pics:

The regular:

The Notchback:

I think that the Notch looks more like a family sedan, whereas the regular looks like a race car. But then again, the Notch looks like it could have a removable roof. And, with some work, it could. Which would be pretty fly.

Yes, I'm thinking about this over-much. So what. It's not like I don't read the news or listen to Opera in the park or keep up with politics or read philosophy. I do all these high-brow things, plus I worry about whether I should covet a regular or a Notchback.

And I want to know what you think. Plus, as an aesthetic decision, all I have to go on are other peoples' opinions. All distinctions are social, as we well know. What's your choice? PLEASE vote on the top right side of the blog.

(ps: That blue is totally the color of my future car. With a charcoal grey interior.)

Car aren't jerks

2008-09-08T22:00:00.001-07:00

Generally speaking I wouldn't buy an old VW, because even though they are kind of awesome, they're super small and, well, kind of ... "usual."

There is one exception: a 1967 VW 21-window microbus. When Barbara gives birth to quadruplets and baby Milpitas Steel-Lowney needs a way to get to soccer practice, she'll ride in style in this amazing piece of transportation art.

The VW bus is a symbol of hippie-ness and counter-culturability. The earliest two-tone models also have great lines up front, where the chrome meets in a 'V'. And apparently, in wind-tunnel tests the microbus is more aerodynamic than the VW Beetle. !!!

Of course, the kids would all have to sit in the back, as the front provides virtually no protection against front-end collisions. But then again, with a load full of kids and/or camping supplies, we wouldn't be going very fast anyway.

The extra windows of this microbus let in a ton of light and allow kids (at heart?) the ability to stare out at trees and birds and planes whilst dear old dad (not yet) putters through traffic. It also has a sunroof, to really open up the top of the vehicle. With all this light and air, it's practically a convertible!

If I'm lucky, Kelan Jr. will find Nietzsche and will then refuse to speak. He'll actually be able to understand my Masters thesis, though, which is not a bad trade-off.

This Land is Your Land

2008-09-08T16:09:00.000-07:00

From the Philadelphia Daily News today:

"In a corner booth, Biden sat down and, after a moment's conversation, planted a kiss on the forehead of Carolyn Bauer, age 89. Bauer explained afterward it wasn't such a friendly encounter.

"I told him I'm not going to vote for him," Bauer said. "Anybody who runs with a guy with a name like that is not going to get my vote. It'd be disgusting to get a man named Barack Obama as president of the United States. No way. I mean it ... I'm going to vote for McCain and the lady."

"[Obama's] a Muslim," Bauer added. "He pretends to be a Christian, and he isn't, he's a Muslim."

---

When visiting a good friend in Tucson, AZ recently, I jokingly pointed out that in McCain's home state, it was gutsy of him to have an Obama sticker on his car. He proceeded to tell me that a week earlier he had been to a concert at the county fairgrounds. There was a dirt parking lot, and the cars kicked up a bit of dust. When he and his wife returned to their car after the show, they saw, written on the dust on their car, "Nigger Lover."

This is the part of the blog where I'm supposed to say either (1) Let's rally around Obama, donate money, volunteer, tell your friends to vote, etc, to help defeat these bastards. Or (2) the woman in the diner and the person who scrawled on my friend's car are Americans too, just like us. They need to be educated, perhaps, but also loved. Or, (3) these are just a few bad apples. Or, (4) I'd like to smack these people, 89-year old woman be damned.

Instead, I just keep thinking what I thought 10 years ago, when McCain joking asked, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" The same thing I thought 8 years ago, when Bush &Co were smearing John McCain, claiming that he had fathered an "illegitimate" black child. The same thing I thought 4 years ago when Republicans made fun of John Kerry's heroism by wearing purple heart band-aids. The same thing I thought 2 weeks ago when Republicans were laughing at community organizing. I thought, "Man, these guys are pieces of shit. How can anyone be proud of associating with them? How can anyone agree with them?"

Now, I dislike Democrats often enough. I disagree with the party line on gun control, on free trade, cozy ties with lobbyists and corporations, caving in on torture and illegal wiretapping ... I've heard ardent Democrats be illogical, refuse to admit when they're wrong, damage property as a means of protest, pass along rumors, speak condescendingly toward Republicans ....

But never have I seen this type of viciousness, this type of mean-spiritedness, this type of ass-holery. And I mean, not just from the rank-and-file, some-dumb-jerk-on-the-street. I mean at their convention. Orchestrated by their campaign managers. From the mouths of Senators and Vice Presidential nominees. But also, yes, on the street (or on my friend's car).

And this is the party of values?

I was taught that hate is bad. Except, as I saw on a t-shirt worn by a man protesting gay marriages in San Francisco, it's OK to "Hate Evil." So long as it doesn't consume you. Because then, at least, you've got a rationale, and the hate is really just a deeper form of dislike, distaste, disagreement, etc.

So when my liberal friends tell me that they hate W. Bush, I know that it's because he's done innumerable, incalculable, horrible, atrocious --yet specific-- things, and not out of some irrational hate-fest (as some conservatives claim).

And then what do liberals do about it? They throw pies at Ann Coulter. And kiss hateful 89-year old women on the forehead.

So what's my point here? Basically I've blogged twice about how the Republican party consists of jerks, and those who love them. I dunno. Time to blog about cars some more.

Palin: the Personal is Political

2008-09-06T14:34:00.000-07:00

So far, Democrats have been rather good about basing their negative attacks in substantive policy differences. Mr. Obama warned that Republicans would try to "make this a big election about small issues," and forbade his staff from even discussing Ms. Palin's daughter's pregnancy.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. Ms. Palin recently said, "the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected." When pressed by reporters to name even one of these vicious "Obama/Biden Democrats," Palin's spokeswoman could not.

Years now I've watched Republicans discuss the supposed danger to society posed by unwed/teen mothers. "Welfare Queens," Reagan called them. Democrats, on the other hand, tend toward funding prenatal healthcare and Early Head Start. Another thing Democrats seem to be big on is comprehensive sex education. Which brings me to Sarah Palin.

I agree with Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin that one's family should be off-limits to attack. Ms. Palin's policy positions, however, should not. This is a fine line, but I think that it is one we can walk carefully.

To wit: Sarah Palin strongly supports "abstinence-only" education. This means, among other things, no talk of how to avoid STDs, and no access to birth control. Social Conservatives who support these policies do so in the face of overwhelming evidence that "abstinence-only" policies don't work. Some studies show that these policies are outright dangerous, increasing the spread of diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Certain social conservatives, like Sarah Palin, support these policies even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Are these people willfully ignorant of the evidence? Or do they support this policy for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality, science and efficacy?

Which brings me back to Ms. Palin's family. When Republicans talk about teen pregnancy, they see it immediately and only as a character flaw. Instead, I propose that we look at it as a piece of evidence. One that Ms. Palin cannot ignore. She cannot claim ignorance. No doubt she has better things to do than read reports by the American Medical Association, the Government Accountability Office, the American Academy of Pediatrics, various medical journals and Congressional reports. But now, in the most intense and personal way possible, Sarah Palin now knows that "abstinence-only" education does not work.

Which reveals something fundamental. In this instance, at least, Ms. Palin advocates public policy that she knows does not work. To put it another way, Ms. Palin would implement policy based not on its efficacy, but because she wants to force her moral convictions on others.

---
update:

Left unstated in this post was the primary logic of my critique. Which is: Ms. Palin would mandate teaching an approach to sex education (actually, a lack thereof) that she, presumably, taught her own daughter, to ill effect. Withholding information about sex did not yield sought-after results in her own home, yet (I tried to argue) she would mandate its being taught to others.

That being said, I recently found this: “I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues,” Palin said in 2006. Presumably, Ms. Palin taught her daughter about contraceptives, yet her daughter still became pregnant.

No contradiction on Ms. Palins part, and perhaps only a case to be made that comprehensive sex-education does not work. Hooray!

I guess that her family actually is off-limits.

RNC politics

2008-09-03T21:56:00.000-07:00

I haven't blogged about politics or, really, anything much. But it's hard to watch the Republican National Convention and not try to "process" what I'm seeing. To put it simply:

Republicans are bullies.

For two days now I've watched Repub- licans laugh gleefully at vicious attacks against Barack Obama and Democrats in general. On Wednesday night, the convention hall broke into uproarious laughter at the mention of Obama's position as a "community organizer." To use a more appropriate word, this laughter was mockery. They sneer. More laughter at Obama's hopefulness. More at his remarkable personal story--Gov. Palin critiqued his run for President as another chapter in his story of self-discovery.

I've even heard them laugh at attacks against nameless "others" in business and politics--the Washington Establishment, Big Oil and other corporations, lax accountability, no-bid contracts, etc. If one knows anything about recent US history, these easy, amorphous targets are clearly other Republicans. There was a Republican in the White House, and Republicans in both houses of Congress for six (6) years. Accountability? The Government Accountability Office were barely asked by Congress to hold investigations into the executive branch during this time, and Bush vetoed not a single bill. Who did Cheney turn to, when he was coming up with Energy legislation? Energy companies. Who gave out no-bid contracts to Halliburton &etc for work in Iraq? I am simply bewildered, hearing Republicans attack these nameless boogeymen, when in fact it was Repub- licans behind the wheel the whole time.

Then there were the lies. Obama's votes in the Illinois Senate have been explained again and again. Obama's "present" votes were a legitimate and calculated political tool, not, as Guliani purports, due to his inability comprehend legislation. Of course, Guliani didn't say it quite that nicely. Instead of the facts, Guliani called Obama stupid. Playground tactics. Guliani also said that Democrats "gave up on America." Nice touch.

Mitt Romney attacked the "Eastern Elite." Romney, of course, is a multi-millionare ex-governor from Massachusetts, whose father was president of American Motors, himself a governor and a Cabinet secretary. I'm not surprised to hear this from Romney who, while I was a citizen and voter in MA, mocked the state of which he was still governor. Classy. But then this elitist who lives and works in the East bashes the "Eastern Elite"? What straw man does he think he's attacking?

On Tuesday, Lieberman said that Obama hadn't "reached across the isle" to work on legislation with Republicans. This is simply not true. Obama campaign advisor Robert Gibbs "cited Obama's work with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, on the government budget." (from cnn.com)

Palin claimed that Obama would raise taxes on all Americans, including and especially small business owners. Does she actually believe this? Has she listened to anything Obama has said about reducing taxes on the middle class, promoting innovation and fostering jobs in the US? Is she ignorant, or is she lying though her teeth, promoting a tired stereotype of Democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals"?

Mostly, watching the RNC, I felt like I was watching a convention of bullies. People willing to lie, people willing to attack again and again. These were not speeches that highlighted policy differences. The tone of this convention has been of disdainful mockery. The only metaphor I can think of to describe it is of a playground bully, big and mean and used to being able to push people around. I imagine the jock from Napoleon Dynamite. His outright disdain for Napoleon. Who is this skinny, weird-looking nobody with a strange name? His tactics are intimidation and mockery.

What's scary for me is that it just might work. No one wants to vote for whiners. Politics isn't fair. John Kerry's Swift Boat friends know that attacks don't have to stay above the belt. Complaining about them means you're a wimp.

But never before have I understood Obama's appeal so clearly. When Obama talks about the "politics of personal destruction" and about "voting our hopes, not our fears," I took them to be political pablum. When the speakers at the DNC praised McCain again and again, and highlighted policy differences again and again, I thought, this is natural. This is what politics should be about.

But man, has the RNC opened my eyes. Whenever the Republicans are not talking about McCain's experience as a POW, they are working to destroy Obama, as a person and not just as a politician. They mock Democrats' hopefulness. They invoke fear of terrorism and claim that Democrats "want to lose in Iraq" and "want the terrorists to win."

This is not the type of politics I want for our country. The people I've seen this week at the RNC, laughing, make me sick to my stomach. I have to admit, they almost make me afraid, make me want to be quiet, to run away. They remind me of all those assholes who picked on me in school because I was tall and they wanted to prove something.

Republicans have shown that they are willing to do anything to win. I am not, and wouldn't belong to a party that would. But man, I want to stand up to them and slap that smile off of every one of their smug, rich, entitled faces. But without the violence, of course. Because I'm a pansy-assed liberal.

Shout-Out: USA! USA!

2008-08-25T00:33:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have noticed that, to date, this blog has showcased foreign cars exclusively (European, to be more precise). Why is this? Primarily this has to do with styling: by the 1950s the major American manufacturers were making big, clunky cars, and by the 1960s the Americans were making huge, clunky, butt-ugly cars. The 1955 Bel-Air was still a pretty car, but have you ever tried parallel-parking one?

In contrast, European cars continued producing stylish cars for a lot longer. For instance, Volvo's PV544, which was produced through 1965, has awesome body styling reminiscent of a 40s-era Chevrolet.

1945 Chevy:

1965 Volvo:

So, the post-1950s cars are out. The problem with buying a pre-1950 car is that technology has progressed so far since then. Engines now use un-leaded gasoline, and seatbelts have been shown to prevent you from flying through the windshield. The only classic American cars worth owning today are curiosities or hot-rods, not daily-drivers.

Except, perhaps, for the 1955 Corvette. Ah, Corvette: GM's response to American GIs returning from WWII who had seen European cars. Chevrolet basically got it wrong for the first two years, with an under-powered V6 and a 2-speed automatic (hahaha!). Finally, in 1955 they unveiled the Chevy small-block, a V8 that could provide enough power to make the Corvette a true sports car. Plus, they also made 75 of these cars with a 3-speed manual transmission! Imagine that! It's not quite a 4-speed Jag, but it's getting there. And, these early Corvettes have style. Ba-zam! The later models were too flashy, with unnecessary side-scoops, too much chrome (if that could be possible), and they just look big and clunky (USA! USA!). The 1958 Corvette is what I always think, when I think "Corvette," with the added associations of "expensive," "pretentious," "meretricious," etc. But the 1955 Corvette, for 75 glorious cars, did it right.

My favorite part, as usual, are the stand-alone headlights. My second-favorite part: the rear. Baby's got back! I don't want none, unless you got fins, hun!

Of course, there's always a sticking point, and for cool old cars, chances are it's the price. The reason why I haven't included the 1955 Chevrolet Corvette on my list so far is that I tend to covet cars that can love me back. Cars that I can afford. You know, later. A Porsche 356 is pricey, but if I can find another one for $16,000, like I did earlier this summer, then maybe once I've gotten a real job and need transportation, it enters the realm of possibility.

A 1955 Corvette, on the other hand, costs about $60,000. Or up to $200,000. And that's probably not for the ultra-rare manual transmission. Plus, everyone knows how expensive Corvettes are, and therefore it's way unlikely to get one on the cheap.

Oh, America. Why must you push me into the arms of European coupes?

Chop Shop

2008-08-22T00:40:00.001-07:00

How hard is it to convert a coupe into a convertible? I wonder. Probably anything can be done, with the right body shop and enough money. Hmm.

Take, for example, the 1968 BMW 1600GT. Born when the BMW company took over the Glas car company, BMW threw its (better) hardware into the Glas body. Add the cool circular tail lights from an early BMW 1600, then the classic kidney-shaped grills to the front, and voila!

The BMW 1600GT is a fine looking car, if you're into the whole fastback thing (which I'm usually not). But when you see it as a cabrio, wow! From this ...
to this!
Imagine tooling around in a classic 1960s Euro-sports convertible, but without the price of an ASA Ferrarina or Aston Martin, or the unreliable workings of an MGB, Austin-Healey Sprite, Triumph Spitfire, etc. We're talking less than $15,000, if you can find one. Plus the bodywork, of course. But still, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than the 507 (see last post) and you could drive it around, too!

Oh, and for those sociology fans out there (Jason), here's the connection: Glas is the title of a very rare book by Derrida. The (in)famous Frenchie presents a text by Hegel, a deconstruction of that text, and a commentary on the deconstruction, side-by-side on the same page. I've got two words for that: hard core. Three more words: $100 on Amazon. Yeowch.

Stupidly cool cars

2008-08-17T23:48:00.001-07:00

Went to Monterey this weekend to visit family and see stupidly cool cars. As in, cars that should not be driven in the rain. Cars that should never be parked outside overnight. Cars that cost more than a house (well, not in CA).

I haven't yet uploaded pics from the weekend, but here are my top two. The first is a 1957 BMW 507. Only 250 of these were ever made. Fortunately, BMW reprised the styling on the 2000 BMW Z8. Unfortunately, the Z8 costs almost as much as this classic.

Next is a Ferrari. Ah, Ferrari. Most of these cars are too angular for my taste, and the 13mpg is a bit of a turn-off. But for a 1960 Ferrari 250, I'd make an exception. Heck, I'd make two.

Ordinary Odors

2008-08-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

While watching the Colbert Report on-line (legitimately!) I was advertised at by a company that sells underarm deodorant. The ad stated, "One in four people think they sweat more than normal." Apparently, the problem people have is not with sweating too much, it's with thinking that they sweat too much (granted, the two may be linked).

The brilliance of the ad is that it doesn't attempt to increase demand for the product: the demand is already out there. A large enough group of people already think that they sweat extra-ordinarily. All the product claims to do is aid those people in their desire to be ordinary.

The wording of this ad reminds me of Harvey Sacks, who writes, "Whatever we my think about what it is to be an ordinary person in the world, an initial shift is not to think of an 'ordinary person' as some person, but as somebody having as their job, as their constant preoccupation, doing 'being ordinary.' It's not that somebody is ordinary, it's perhaps that that's what their business is. And it takes work, as any other business does."

This is a classic insight by Foucault: people strive to be normal, but no one actually is normal. This insight is humorously explored in Kevin O'Keefe's book The Average American, where the author tries to find the most average person in the country. It takes some work to track down such a person who fits in the "majority" on a host of categories. In the end, no one actually is normal. It's a chimera. But it keeps us becoming-normal (Deleuze!) and that's what matters.

To Die For

2008-08-12T12:24:00.001-07:00

When my dad was sixteen, he saw an ad for a 1929 Cunning- ham hearse (see pic). It didn't run, was located in Indiana, and was only $600(!). Despite his insistence, for some reason my Nana didn't hock her jewelry to buy him the plane ticket.

Wait, did they even have planes back then?

Just think of how I would've turned out if my dad drove me to school in this. "So get a witch's shawl on/ A broomstick you can crawl on/ We're gonna pay a call on/ The Lowney family." Yup, I'd be a weird person now.

Deal or no Deal?

2008-08-11T19:01:00.000-07:00

What is it called when you find an incredible deal on something that is still too pricey? "Frustrating." Being both cheap and having little in the way of disposable income (see Bourdieu quote, below), I'm always looking for a deal.

Recently I found a restored 1962 Porsche 356 on Craigs for $16,000. Now, these cars easily go for 3x that much (and sometimes 10x that much), especially a nicely restored one. This is the deal of the century on my DREAM car (see previous post)!!!

At the same time, I ain't got 16 grand to blow on a car. Even if I did, I'd instead use it to pay down my student loans, or sock away for a house down-payment. There's no way I could justify buying this car, even at 33% of the market rate. As my friend Dan said, I don't want money to buy the car, I just want the car. I'd then have to convince myself not to sell it at an exorbitant profit, so as to use the money for one of the aforementioned noble purposes.

It's hard being a cheapskate when you can't even afford the absurdly low price.

McCain the Commie!

2008-08-07T17:51:00.000-07:00

Riddle me this: John McCain is running ads that advocate opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore sites to drill for more oil. His logic? Increased supply will decrease prices. But more importantly, perhaps, this will reduce US dependence on foreign oil.

All the experts say that this is a stupid idea because it takes so long to find a site, set up a derrick, and process the crude, so oil wouldn't hit the marketplace for 10 years. However, this is a silly reason to not drill. We'll certainly need oil 10 years from now. Others say that this is a stupid idea because deposits of oil under US land and water make up an almost insignificant amount of the global supply. This is getting closer to the problem. There is a reason why the middle east exports so much oil. It's because they have a lot of it. We don't.

No, the real problem with this plan is that the oil under US territory would not stay in the US. Oil is traded on the world market. This means that any oil dug up by Exxon &etc would be sold to the highest bidder (read: China).

So how would this reduce America's dependence on foreign oil? The only way I can make sense of McCain's claim is if he intends to nationalize the US oil industry. This is what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. Instead of allowing the oil industry to profit from their oil, they now run their own oil industry, and keep as much as they need to heat their homes and run their cars.

Now, I know what you're thinking: but Chavez is a Commie! That's right! Nationalizing industries to share profits amongst the populace is a communist thing to do. If McCain wants to keep US oil in the US he'd either have to impose strict export tariffs (not likely to make the companies or the rest of the world happy) or would have to nationalize the industry. So is McCain a Communist? Or is he just stupid? Or is he counting on voters' stupidity?

Cars to oggle, but not to buy

2008-08-07T16:54:00.000-07:00

First, the Volvo 122S. My first car. Smooth lines, with just enough curves to make it a classic. They say you always remember your first, and I'll always rubberneck a 122 in good condition. Time to move on, though.

Next, the BMW 2002tii. I love this car. It's not sporty enough to lust after, but damn if it doesn't look good. In that boxy, Euro-car sort of way

Then there's the VW Karmann Ghia. This is the car I always wanted until I tried to fit into one. Come on! Ain't no German this small!

Ah, the Audi TT, the only reasonably-affordable sports car made in the last 40 years that also looks like a cool car should. Simple curves, nothing too flashy.

WTB #4

2008-08-07T16:29:00.001-07:00

Curves! And how! The Morris Minor has been described as the British VW bug: small, economical, mass-produced and beloved. This is a 1964 Morris Minor 1000, with the larger 1098cc engine that can get 40+mpg and still cruise at over 70mph. All the benefits of '60s technology, but with '40s style!

The Minor was designed by the same guy who created the well-known Mini Cooper (aka the Morris Mini Minor! really!). Legend has it that the designer thought that the Minor was too small, so he had the prototype cut in half, down the length, and then he widened it by 4 inches. That's why there's a 4-inch flat line down the middle of the hood--it was too late to re-shape the curve of the hood. The result is that even guys like me can fit in this compact car!

Early models of the Minor were under-powered (i.e., can't keep up with modern US traffic) and the earliest models were just plain ugly, but the post-1962 models embody everything I want in a car. Good looks, easy to work on, and popular enough to make spare parts cheap and easily-accessible. I like to picture myself wearing a tweed jacket (leather patches on the elbows, 'natch) stepping out of this car with my briefcase and rushing off to teach a class.

Decent examples can be found for $4,000. I'd want to re-build the engine, which I'm sure I could do in my living room. This is the car I've been lusting after this summer. Again: if you can help me find any one of these cars for <$2,000, please let me know! Rust-free and straight is all I ask. I can work on the rest, but I can't afford body work.

WTB #3

2008-08-07T15:34:00.001-07:00

This was the original dream car from my high school days. It's a 1964 Volvo p1800S. My first car, at age 16, was a 1966 Volvo 122S, and the p1800 was the cooler, sexier model--the only true sports car Volvo ever made. It has lines like a '50s Ferrari and was almost made by Karmann (which also made Porsches and the legendary Karmann Ghia). VW thought the p1800 would compete with its sports cars and forbade Karmann from taking the job.

The earlier models (1961-63) had quality control issues, and the later models (1967-) got rid of the fantastic "bull horn" bumpers, the "egg-crate" grill, and redesigned the chrome so that it didn't follow the natural lines of the car. Lame.

I used to dream about fitting a larger B20 engine into a 1964 car, to get the best of both worlds, but now I think I'd rather keep it all original. I had a dual-carburetor (vaybers!) B18 engine in my old Volvo, and I could work on it blindfolded. It'd be fun to have another. I miss the sound. I do have to admit a desire to chop the top off and have the coolest custom convertible ever (see pic).

This car was my first love, and there will always be a place in my heart for it. When I bought the 122S I felt like I was initiated into the brotherhood of classic Volvo enthusiasts. They're my people. Lord knows Barbara has heard me talk about this car enough. Looking at them online is basically how I got through my Masters thesis (one can't live on Deleuze alone).

I'd bet dollars to donuts that this'll be the one car on this list I'll ever actually own.

WTB #2

2008-08-07T15:21:00.001-07:00

Sigh. So the Porsche probably isn't in the cards. What's to be done? Go to the Bimmer, of course. To be precise, a 1965 BMW 2000CS. It is less curvy than the 356, but the ones it does have are classic. Simple, elegant, timeless and well-made. It looks like it's moving when it's just standing still. With basic maintenance this is a car I could drive for the next 20 years.

The later model of this car, the 3.0CS, has a larger engine and is correspondingly pricier ($10,000+), but I like the earlier, cheaper 4-cylinder 2000. I found one on Craigs for $1,000. Granted it needs a cylinder head, but at least that way I can insure that the engine is rebuilt properly.

This car makes me think of my Papa, or at least the image that I think he was trying to cultivate in the 60s. Smooth, cultivated, martini-drinking, appreciating quality. That's about as good a reason as any for me to WTB this car. Maybe someday I'll ask my own grandkids to take their sand-filled shoes off before climbing in my 2000CS.

WTB #1

2008-08-07T14:13:00.000-07:00

When I'm not hating on society, I'm scouring the web trying to find that elusive "barn-find," the cool car that's been sitting, unused but rust-free, in someone's garage, outhouse, barn, etc., that needs some restoration and is now on sale for next-to-nothing. Sadly, everyone else is looking for such a car: everyone wants something for nothing (including yours truly).

Luckily for me, I have relatively cheap taste. Or, as Bourdieu says, "Because the dispositions durably inculcated by objective conditions … engender aspirations and practices objectively compatible with those objective requirements, the most improbable practices are excluded, either totally without examination, as unthinkable, or at the cost of the double negation which inclines agents to make a virtue of necessity, that is, to refuse what is anyway refused and to love the inevitable" (1977: 77). In other words, I think cheap cars are cooler than expensive cars because, well, it's no fun to lust after a Maserati that I'll never have.

There is one exception, of course: the Porsche 356 coupe. I'm a sucker for curves and simple lines, and this car has both. It's too bad that this is a Porsche--I'm not looking for a performance race car, just a daily driver I can stare at for hours, spend time fixing up, and, you know, define me as a person. There's nothing too flashy about this car (which my father refers to as a rolling bathtub). The most expensive of these models, the convertibles, sell for $185,000, but I think the coupe looks better. A decent coupe can be found for around $20,000, and some go as low as $10,000. Is it too much to want one for $2,000?

If I had a straight, rust-free 356 with no engine (cheaper that way!) I'd throw in a rebuilt VW 1600cc 4-cylinder. Great gas mileage, and it'd fit right in the engine bay. This is the DREAM car. If you can help me find such a car, I would LOVE you forever. And ever. Amen. If I already love you, I would love you more.