Over a century of the "Horseless Carriage"

[Sixty8panther]

In a thread about the Honda Step-Bus concept Moltar wrote:

The future isn't necessarily going to be pretty, I'm afraid.

222682[/snapback]

This is a great jumping off point for my perspective on the past

120 (or so) years of the Automotive world.

The Automobile was is its infancy when WWI started, it peeked

once magnificently in the late 1930s and then stagnated a bit

throughout the 1940s due to WWII. Many fantastic things were

accomplished in the 1950s especially style wise and then in

the 1960s the modern car was born & performance was given

to the masses in gorgeous, candy wrapper like packages.

Ever since then untill very recently the automobile has been

in a downward spiral, getting worse and worse and worse.

The 1970s saw the automotive equivelant of the witch trials.

95% of style & performance was sacraficed for a 05% boost

in fuel economy and or safety. Instead of the beautifuly

orchestrated revolutions and evolutions of the era prior to

Nader and the granola bar eating nuts who insisted oil wells

would completely dry up by 1982 and cars were evil, the

wheel kept getting reinvented and people who should have

not ever even had a driver's license were allowed dictate

how cars should & would be designed and engineered.

The baby was thrown out with the bath water... the forrest

was right in front of people's eyes but they saw no trees,

Horrible things were alowed to occur for tyhe sake of the

misguided masses' idea of a "greater good" and stupidity

prevailed.

We have the power to design a new car that looks just as

dazzling and dramatic as a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado but

with all the modern usefull featueres that have true benefit

but none of the modern junk that is useless and

conterproductive. Why is it that 99% of the cars still suck

so much? Because mediocrity is celebrated & good ideas

die on the drawign board when gutless pu$$ies are

allowed to micro-& macro-manage a company to death.

It's like this:

Tail fins, functional hood scoops, big chrome grilles & other elaborate styling: good

matte black safety bumpers: bad

LEDs for tail lights & turn signals etc: good

over regulation of styling features pertaining to lights etc: bad

fuel injection: good

174 feet of emmissions hoses underhood: bad

thin sheetmetal: bad

crumple zones: good

bland styling: bad

modern CAD designed safety cage: good

unibody on everything every time: bad

"smart" air bags & seatbelts: good

Solid ugly B-pillars on cars which started off as hardtops on the drawing board: bad

Giving the average consumer choices and alternatives: good

Telling the consumer what he/she NEEDS or WANTS because it is conveniant: bad

I'd love to hear a discussion about this. Do you agree... disagree?

How does this all pertain to GM and the big three? How about the

whole concept of a "world car" and all of today's homogization of

all things across the different corners of the globe?

Discuss amongst yourselves... (althought you KNOW I'll jump in too)

[aaaantoine]

It's like this:

Tail fins, functional hood scoops, big chrome grilles & other elaborate styling: good

matte black safety bumpers: bad

LEDs for tail lights & turn signals etc: good

over regulation of styling features pertaining to lights etc: bad

fuel injection: good

thin sheetmetal: bad

crumple zones: good

bland styling: bad

modern CAD designed safety cage: good

"smart" air bags & seatbelts: good

Giving the average consumer choices and alternatives: good

Telling the consumer what he/she NEEDS or WANTS because it is conveniant: bad

Agreed.

174 feet of emmissions hoses underhood: bad

Engines will evolve enough that these hoses will gradually disappear.

unibody on everything every time: bad

It seems as though the unibody vehicles are doing much better these days when it comes to towing. Unless the Touraeg is BOF. Then I am mistaken.

Solid ugly B-pillars on cars which started off as hardtops on the drawing board: bad

222723[/snapback]

The designers want pillarless hardtops. The engineers think the designers are nuts. Show me a single vehicle missing a B pillar that has at least an average side impact rating. Saturn ION Quad Coupe, Mazda RX-8, Honda Element...

Then again, convertibles fall into this category, also. I suppose I'll have to agree on this point.

Edited December 1, 2006 by aaaantoine

[Enzora]

The designers want pillarless hardtops.  The engineers think the designers are nuts.  Show me a single vehicle missing a B pillar that has at least an average side impact rating.  Saturn ION Quad Coupe, Mazda RX-8, Honda Element...

222758[/snapback]

Pillarless hardtops are a lot like gas mileage vs power. We started out with the cool pillarless hardtops with gas-guzzling V8s under the hoods. Then the standards were changed so that safety and gas mileage were more important. So what do we do, we get creative and engineer cars that can meet these new standards while still being able to return to the coolness that we love. Then the standards for safety and gas mileage increase again (we're seeing this with gas mileage, although hardtops are only in the comeback phase) and the cycle repeats itself.

I'll leave it to you guys to figure out how this applies to the future of automobiles.

[Sixty8panther]

Well... yes. Good responses guys.

What I'm saying is how did THIS STUFF:

"Evolve" into this?

And this?

Sixty, Please find a blackboard and write "I will not hotlink images from Tripod" 100 times. Thanks. -Z

THAT IS NOT PROGRESS!!!

Not trying to pick on Dodge... just picked a manufacturer at random.

Edited December 4, 2006 by z28luvr01

[Flybrian]

Because 80% of all Chrysler products after 1960 looked like crap

[Sixty8panther]

Okay... well that's fine, so how do you call THIS progress?

[ocnblu]

Good Lord, check out the mosquito bites on the chick in the 60's Polara 500 ad.

I agree with just about everything you say in this thread, Sixty4. Chrysler's LX cars made a promise they haven't kept with subsequent designs, for the most part. Ford is hopelessly bland with their cars, save the Mustang. I really have hope for GM to regain their style dominance.

Edited December 4, 2006 by ocnblu

[Sixty8panther]

for the record the W-body Lumina/MC were the cars that

"do not belong" in that lineup. I have no ill will towards

the 1978 Impala except that it did not come in a hardtop.

The B-body being euthenized and the W-body "taking over"

all the full size car market for Chevy (nevermind Buick, Olds

& Pontiac) was an absolute joke. Now in hindsight, ten years

later it seems like quite possibly the lamest, dumbest thing

GM has ever done in it's 8 decade History... perhaps killing

Olds was worse but it's a close call.

[!!!TED!!!]

68,

Your questioning of automotive styling evolution can be easily explained.

MONEY

When you are GM of the 50's and 60's, and own almost all of the car market, you can afford to do anything! Results: Fantastic, sculpted lines, powerful motors, all new cars every year.

When you are the GM of the 70's, you lose money in the oil crisis (because of those powerful motors), and have to scale back. The government gets tough on speed, and safety.

Results: Downsize, smart size, new size etc...Huge bumpers!

When you are GM of the 80's, the government is getting tough on economy, and safety, and the Japanese and european makes are comming faster and stronger, you play it safe, minimize platforms, consolidate, and reduce costs.

Results: Many boxy cars that look alike.

When you are the GM of the 90's, the economy improves, and you have some more coin for do or die efforts. The public has grown weary of tiny econoboxes.

You "rediscover" curves, and go nuts.

Results: Jelly-bean styling for everyone!

Now you are GM of the 00's, and you realize that people still want fantastic, sculpted lines, powerful motors, and quality to match.

Unlike in the 50's and 60's, you dont have as much market share, and cant afford all new cars yearly. Unlike the 70's and 80's, you have learned to intergrate safety and economy, with style and size. And a part of you wishes to forget the nineties.

You dont have much money, but you are determined to use your resources wisely.

Results: Boldness! Go big, or go home!

[Flybrian]

The B-body being euthenized and the W-body "taking over"

all the full size car market for Chevy (nevermind Buick, Olds

& Pontiac) was an absolute joke.

223771[/snapback]

Uhhh...the H and G-bodies took over the fullsize car market for those divisions. The W-bodies supplanted the RWD G-bodies of the 80s. Your lamentations remind me that people also complained about another downsized car claiming to be fullsized but really not being so. It was 1977 and they were talking about the B-bodies.

Chevy, well, sorry, but fullsize Chevies haven't been appealing for decades. Leaving Chevrolet with the FWD Impala as its mainstream flagship - a car, by the way, that people actually bought - is fine with me since Chevrolet wouldn't have known what to do with a G-body if one fell on them.

In any case, you're forgetting that cars today are generally 'better' in every tangible aspect compared to cars of the past. Contemporary Impala SSs and Regal GSs will outhandle and outaccelerate most of the factory Impalas and Wildcats of yore. They are more comfortable, far more economical and efficient while increasing in performance. They are also filled with the luxury features only dreamed of on showcars of the past at an extremely reasonable price.

[ocnblu]

Government regulations killed goodlooking, fast cars for a while because the automakers didn't know of any other way to meet fuel economy and emissions standards other than to choke off their engines and downsize all the style out while trying to maintain passenger room. Nowadays, the technology is there to meet the government requirements, hence the hopeful signs for a styling renaissance.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Good Lord, check out the mosquito bites on the chick in the 60's Polara 500 ad.

What about her face? It has "Strangers With Candy" written all over it.

[Sixty8panther]

Althought I agree with much of what is said here

my question was mostly a rhetorical one. Yes,

government regulation and the Amercan big-3's

lack of experience with small cars and fuel

economy played a part but you have to agree

that to at least some degree the designers just

gave up. There is more "style" in a bag of

ferteliser than in many late 70s or 80s cars. Yes

some were quite cool but most are just lame

compared to what came before.

What about her face? It has "Strangers With Candy" written all over it.

223975[/snapback]

Too funny! And yet 100% true.

FLY: Uhhh...the H and G-bodies took over the fullsize car market for those divisions. The W-bodies supplanted the RWD G-bodies of the 80s.

As far as I'm concerned there was not much difference between the

H & W bodies. Just as I call all 1980s FWD Mopars "K-cars" I call all

midsize FWD GMs from the 80s & 90s W-bodies. It's a gross over

generalization but it comes from my hate of transverse mounted

motors and FWD. H-bodies were not much better than the Ws. Sure

the Bonneville SSEi and Park Ave were "nice" cars but for us RWD

fans they're still NOT even close to being worthy of substituting for

the B-body.

The G-bodys were neither full sized or reasonably priced. $37,000

(1995 money BTW) for a FWD Riviera powered by a 3800 SC? WTF

is that all about??? They're gorgepous cars and all but only make

fiscal sense when used. Sorry to say this but for $37,000 in 1995

people bought loaded up BMW 328s & Mustang Cobras with DOHC

32-valver V8s, not a two door Park Ave. IIRC an SLP Firehawk

with 300+hp could be had for less than that.

But all that aside the Aurora & Riviera were never meant to make

up anything more than a drop in the bucket sales wise from the

deceased B-body.

...

FLY: Your lamentations remind me that people also complained about another downsized car claiming to be fullsized but really not being so. It was 1977 and they were talking about the B-bodies.

Those complaints were valid too!

Yes. true.

[balthazar]

Contemporary Impala SSs and Regal GSs will outhandle and outaccelerate most of the factory Impalas and Wildcats of yore. They are more comfortable, far more economical and efficient while increasing in performance. They are also filled with the luxury features only dreamed of on showcars of the past at an extremely reasonable price.

Performance: a Regal GS is Buick's mid-sizer- let's put it up against Buick's mid-sizer of yore:

'02 Regal GS 3.8 SC, 4-spd auto with TC -- 0-60 : 6.5 sec.

'67 GS 400, 3-spd auto -- 0-60 : 6.0 sec.

'02 Regal GS 3.8 SC, 4-spd auto with TC -- 1/4-mile : 15.0 sec.

'67 GS 400, 3-spd auto -- 1/4-mile : 14.7 sec.

By far the bulk of the handling issue (I don't have an apples-to-apples comparison here) is the tires on the '67; modern tires provide a world's different capability; I know- I've put modern performance radials on '60s cars and hammered on them. There is no inherant deficiency in the design of a '60s Skylark; the GS referenced above featured a factory near-1" front roll bar and a 4-link rear with 4-whl coils. Weight distribution is 56/44%. With equal tires the GS would out-handle the Regal GS, even if it were RWD.

Comfort is subjective: personally I find '60s GM bucket-seat interiors (and here my experience is Pontiacs, which I believe have much more supportive seats than Buick) very comfortable, not to mention refreshingly spacious.

Most creature comforts of today were around in the late '60s- except for audio systems, everything I need in a vehicle. This, also is subjective.

I'm not knocking the Regal GS or the idea that there have been real world improvements in modern cars, but let's not fall into the trap that all modern cars are better in every way than all vintage cars because time has passed; the facts do not back that up in many cases.

[Flybrian]

As far as I'm concerned there was not much difference between the

H & W bodies. Just as I call all 1980s FWD Mopars "K-cars" I call all

midsize FWD GMs from the 80s & 90s W-bodies. It's a gross over

generalization but it comes from my hate of transverse mounted

motors and FWD.

224002[/snapback]

Uh...all of Chrysler's FWD vehicles in the 1980s were based on the K-car platform in some way or another. This is a fact. Saying every FWD GM car from the 90s is a W-body is ignorance.

H-bodies were not much better than the Ws. Sure

the Bonneville SSEi and Park Ave were "nice" cars  but for us RWD

fans they're still NOT even close to being worthy of substituting for

the B-body.

224002[/snapback]

Again, if you don't consider The H-/C-/K-/G-bodies a step up from the W-bodies, I have no idea what exactly you're smoking this evening. These cars - especially the latter three - had more engineering, more thought, more design, and more sophistication than any B-body. This, again, is a simple fact.

The G-bodys were neither full sized

224002[/snapback]

1996 Cadillac DeVille - 117cuft

1996 Buick Roadmaster - 114cuft

1996 Chevy Caprice - 114cuft

1997 Buick Park Avenue - 111cuft

1996 Ford Crown Victoria - 111cuft

1996 Pontiac Bonneville - 110cuft

or reasonably priced. $37,000

(1995 money BTW) for a FWD Riviera powered by a 3800 SC? WTF

is that all about??? They're gorgepous cars and all but only make

fiscal sense when used. Sorry to say this but for $37,000 in 1995

people bought loaded up BMW 328s & Mustang Cobras with DOHC

32-valver V8s, not a two door Park Ave. IIRC an SLP Firehawk

with 300+hp could be had for less than that.

224002[/snapback]

$37,000 is a nice figure that clearly originates from your ass. Rivieras based at $28,195 in 1995. A 325i cost $38,450. But your comparisons have no merit because you're talking about cars that would never be cross-shopped. Also, you really think an SLP Firehawk makes 'fiscal sense'? A Mustang Cobra? Man...

But all that aside the Aurora & Riviera were never meant to make

up anything more than a drop in the bucket sales wise from the

deceased B-body.

224002[/snapback]

So, you choose two flagship luxury cars and compare sales to three cars with much lower transaction prices, one bolstered by an absurd number of fleet sales. Try all the H-/C-/K-/G- bodies. Add up the numbers. Better yet, add up the actual transaction prices. You'll find they are all much, much higher than any Roadmaster or Fleetwood commanded. After all, if there was such a vibrant market for those cars, they wouldn't have shuttered the plant, would they?

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I am with Flybrian on this. While I love my Bonneville it has a lot of flaws that arent present in modern cars. Fuel injection is one of the best things to ever come. Much better control of assembly and rust resistance. Plus more comfortable seats.

[Delta Force79]

This cracks me up as an owner of a B-body and a G body....I own a 1979 Oldsmobile Delta 88, and a 1995 Buick Riviera....68 a Riviera never sold for 37K dude....you're way off, btw my supercharged 3800 has 45 more horsepower than my Rocket 350, not sure of the torque figures, I love my Olds but I know that my Riviera is just as good. Yeah I'm not a fan of FWD, but I've chirped my tires before in the Riv and have had some good fun taking her to speeds I've never reach in my Olds...well except for when I first bought it in 2001. The G bodies were the cream of the crop from GM in the mid 90's the b-bodies were not. I would take an Impala SS from 95-96 any day of the week if given the chance, but I bought the Riviera for its style, comfort, luxury and performance. Yes it needs some work, but its still a great car, and so is the Olds hence why I am restoring it. But Fly makes some great points in his previous post so I'd be inclined to agree with him for the most part....

but in the end I'm stuck in the middle, since I love a V8 RWD B-body, and yet I love my V6 FWD G-Body...(which I wish was a V8...)

Is it possible to swap a Northstar into a Riviera?

[Cory Wolfe]

Sixty8 complaining about unibody among other things... Yeeah, I'll just shut up now.

[Sixty8panther]

Last tiome I checked a loaded up SC Riviera was near $40,000

by the time it was cencelled in 1999. In any case if they had

sold any better than the B-body then Oldsmobile & the Riviera

would stil be around. Anyway XP's 1996 Riviera with a non-SC

3800 listed for like $33,000 WITHOUT a sunroof & CD changer.

As far as the H-/C-/K-/G body's being a step up from the

W-body? Sure they were, but it's still lipstick on a pig. No

enthusiast is going to buy a FWD Bonneville SSEi or when

there was a RWD Lincoln LS to be had, and if someobe

wanted true luxury in 1997,I mean a TRUE big, bold

ruged but still sensible comfotrable luxury car they bought

a Town Car not a FWD Deville.

More and more I'm turned off by FWD Northstars. You want

my 1997 STS withn 145K miles? You can have it for $1500

since that's about 700 more than it's worth at an auction.

Very sad for a car that was worth $49,000 new 10 years ago.

Crappy styling sucks, weather bland or just misguided, and

FWD stinks too.

Yeah... all you guys will be hapy when you're driving

your government issued Camry Hybrids. :wink:

DF79: You're comparing the horsepower in your 79 to your

95 as if it was an apples-to-apples comparison?

Well, how abotu we compare a 1979 FWD hatchback

(Citation) to a 1995 Chevy hatchback (Camaro)

I think the 1979 has like 130 and the 1995 has either

200 or 275 depending on the model.

If you want to compare your 1995 Riviera to a B-body

the DO IT. They still made a RWE B-body roadmaster then,

even XP who LOVES G-body Rivieras will tell you that a

95 Roadmaster will kick a 95 Riviera's ass in the power

department. Lets get real. The Roadmaster was a Impala

SS with a tuxedo on. It had a detunned Vette motor for

all intents and purposes.

1995 Buick Roadmaster Limited

0-60mph: 6.7 1/4 mile: 15.0

1995 Buick Riviera

0-60mph: 7.8 1/4 mile: 15.9

Now as far as unibody.... let's see how well the

DTS-L does against the Town Car Executive-L in the real

world, not just sales wise but in terms of durrability. I

have friend who despises Cadillac onlyl for the fact that

he worked for a limousine manufacturer in the 1980s and

they made unibody Cadillac stretch limos along side RWD

BOF-cars like Lincoln Town Cars. His opinion of 1980s

FWD unibody Cadillacs is even far lower than mine. This

is a person in his late 40s who has TEN times life

experience in all different levels of the car industry than

I have had in my 27 years on this planet.

Unibody is and always will ba a compromise in the sake

of $aving money and weight. Perhaps it's a neccesssary

evil in some cars btu not ALL. The GMT-900 frames

seem to be pretty damn modern to me, why that same

exact tehnology can not be used under a modern B-body

is beyond me...? A 100% updated BOF, RWD Fleetwood

Brougham, Caprice & Roadmaster would be a beautiful

thing if built using today's suspension, interior, safety

cage construction, DOD V8 engines and all other modern

uddates but with a 21st century truck style frame under it.

Now THAT would be smart technology!

[Flybrian]

Last tiome I checked a loaded up SC Riviera was near $40,000

by the time it was cencelled in 1999. In any case if they had

sold any better than the B-body then Oldsmobile & the Riviera

would stil be around. Anyway XP's 1996 Riviera with a non-SC

3800 listed for like $33,000 WITHOUT a sunroof & CD changer.

224126[/snapback]

Again, you're comparing apples with oranges here. But since you want to play, let's make it reasonable and compare Roadmaster sedan sales with Aurora sales. And we'll throw the Riv in for fun.

Not bad for a dying market. And now this bogus affordability argument.

As far as the H-/C-/K-/G body's being a step up from the

W-body? Sure they were, but it's still lipstick on a pig. No

enthusiast is going to buy a FWD Bonneville SSEi or when

there was a RWD Lincoln LS to be had

224126[/snapback]

This is more your opinion than anything rooted in reasonable fact. Your assessment that no 'enthusiasts' buy FWD Bonnevilles is also an insult to many. May I remind you that an enthusiast is not defined by what he drives, but by his passion for it. I consider Brougham-Holiday to be a far greater enthusiast than your typical BMW or Mustang owner regardless of the fact that he owns what is arguably the vehicle least likely to be deemed an 'enthusiast' car, a Cutlass Ciera.

, and if someobe wanted true luxury in 1997,I mean a TRUE big, bold

ruged but still sensible comfotrable luxury car they bought

a Town Car not a FWD Deville.

224126[/snapback]

First, if someone wanted rugged luxury in 1997, they'd buy an Expedition Eddie Bauer. Second, the modern Town Car is a rather big insult to the luxury market given that its unsophisticated, space-inefficient, underpowered, and lacks many, many, many luxury features. Compare a '98 TC to a '98 DeVille - see? I even give you a leg-up - and its obvious what the better luxury car is. Sales figures show it, too. Last, the sensible consumer would instead buy a Grand Marquis which in 1997 was still a classy automobile. But go check on out today. Not only does it look generally the same on the inside, but its a pretty shoddy car.

More and more I'm turned off by FWD Northstars. You want

my 1997 STS withn 145K miles? You can have it for $1500

since that's about 700 more than it's worth at an auction.

Very sad for a car that was worth $49,000 new 10 years ago.

Crappy styling sucks, weather bland or just misguided, and

FWD stinks too.

224126[/snapback]

Again, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with anything. I know you had bad experiences with your Seville, and that's fine. Buying a car used opens you open to lots of flack in the reliability department, especially for all you guys up north. But these maintenance bitches you constantly expound upon, I don't understand at all. Its a surprisingly easy motor to do basic to moderate maintenance on. The far, far older 3800 is actually more time-consuming in certain aspects even though the engine is 'simpler' and the space under the hood is greater.

[Sixty8panther]

Fly: While I understand many of your point regarding my subjectivity

let's just agree to disagree on most fo this stuff... we both know how

we feel in the end. Guess what though? If maybe you did nto have a

FWD sedan offering from GM for years & years while RWD was

sold in millions with somelame excuse for why FWD does not sell while

70% of Automotive many facturers were churning out several or in

some cases nothing BUT, you'd be bitter too.

GM used to offer something for everyone and soon it seems they will

again but I will never except the theory that the W-/H-/C-/K-/G body

cars of the 80s and 90s made for a well rounded and balanced lineup

of cars, esp. for the world's largest automotive manufacturer.

It's pathetic and GM should be ashamed for letting themselves sink to

the levels they were at a few years ago. The "cookie executives" and

beancounters did more damage in those few years than can be

repaired in my lifetime.

First, if someone wanted rugged luxury in 1997, they'd buy an Expedition Eddie Bauer.

224199[/snapback]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.... please!

First off WTF should I be given the choice of unibody car or a pig of an SUV?

What there's no room for middle ground?

Second the Expedition & Navigator have by far the worst handeling dynamics

of any truck I have ever driven, including commercial stuff. I think most Box-

trucks corner better and with a more solid feel. When I worked as a Chevrolet

salesman nothing pissed me off more than having to drive a 1st gen.

Expedition or Navigator... I hated those things with a psssion.

Comparing a 1997 expedition to a 1997 Suburban is like comparing a 1979

Checker Marathon to a 1996 Impala SS.

If you're telling me that instead of asking for a modern day B-dody from GM

people should have bought SUVs then I'm speechless. As great as the

Suburban & Escalade are even those do not IMHO offer a good substitute for

a BOF cars in the sense of a modern day Fleetwood Brougham.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Sixty8panther]

Again, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with anything. I know you had bad experiences with your Seville, and that's fine. Buying a car used opens you open to lots of flack in the reliability department, especially for all you guys up north.

224199[/snapback]

Repairs have been VERY expensive 95% of the time.

Why? Not bacause it's a Cadillac but becasue the damn engine & craddle

have to be dropped down to service anything on that car. it's a giant

mess of trans. suspension, shorty-headers, giant valvecover & plastic

junk sandwitched between the firewall & radiator support. Even replacing

the battery is a major pain in the arse.

DOHC V8 + transverse mounted engine orientation = clusterfu*k!

I've had about a dozen major repairs that came up in that car in the

past four years, with the exception of one, the stupid air ride suspension

which $h! the bed at 135K, every one of my repairs can be contributed

directly or indirectly to the motor that's mounted flippin' sideways.

Most of these repairs were about twice as much money as they would

have been if the motor was the "correct" way. :AH-HA_wink:

Maybe it's just dumb luck but the closer to the 1950s my cars have been

the more solid and well built they are basic maintenance is a pleasant,

rewarding experience instead of a major headache & chore that leaves

you with a migrane, bleeding knuckles & leads to a dead end that seems

to always involve expensive parts and a dealer visit.

[Flybrian]

Fly: While I understand many of your point regarding my subjectivity

let's just agree to disagree on most fo this stuff... we both know how

we feel in the end. Guess what though? If maybe you did nto have a

FWD sedan offering from GM for years & years while RWD was

sold in millions with somelame excuse for why FWD does not sell while

70% of Automotive many facturers were churning out several or in

some cases nothing BUT, you'd be bitter too.

224210[/snapback]

Frankly, I could care less which wheels turn on my car as long as the rest of the car is good. If you haven't noticed, I do like the B-body offerings for what they are - massive boats - and I also dislike Ford's '98+ Panthers because I feel they're inferior not only to the now dozen-year-dead GM cars, but to contemporary fullsize cars, too. You can readily see by the numbers I post and the experience of seeing one that the 1998 reskin improved nothing over the preceeding car. The option packages are a joke, the interior room is ridiculous, and the badge-job between the Ford and Merc are shameful. Simple fact is this - GM and Ford built the best old-school car it could for the early 90s, Ford just simply didn't care to try anymore after the market dwindled. And the difference is, Ford arguably gave up on cars in general during this time. GM didn't, which leads me to...

GM used to offer something for everyone and soon it seems they will

again but I will never except the theory that the W-/H-/C-/K-/G body

cars of the 80s and 90s made for a well rounded and balanced lineup

of cars, esp. for the world's largest automotive manufacturer.

224210[/snapback]

...the fact that the mid-90s+ GM lineup of vehicles was probably the most well-rounded of any manufacturer. I won't post the litney of different models, but suffice it to say, if you couldn't find a car that was the right size, price, and loaded how you wanted, you need to ride the bus. In fact, the lineup was so extensive that models ate into each other's market.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.... please!

...

If you're telling me that instead of asking for a modern day B-dody from GM

people should have bought SUVs then I'm speechless. As great as the

Suburban & Escalade are even those do not IMHO offer a good substitute for

a BOF cars in the sense of a modern day Fleetwood Brougham.

224210[/snapback]

Your statement was 'rugged luxury' in 1997. Anyone who buys a Town Car because its 'rugged' is looking at spending maybe $980 for one that runs long enough to get it to the demolition derby. Whether you realize it or not, your statement hits the exact reason why the B-bodies died and Ford stopped giving a crap about their cars. The concept of 'comfortable luxury' was supplanted by 'rugged luxury.' A Town Car is not rugged; its a barge and drives like old people f@#k - slow and sloppy. A sport utility conveyed the 'new' luxury, the luxury that combined traditional leather-and-wood with the ability to take that quality off-road.

[Sixty8panther]

Again, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with anything. I know you had bad experiences with your Seville, and that's fine. Buying a car used opens you open to lots of flack in the reliability department, especially for all you guys up north.

224199[/snapback]

Repairs have been VERY expensive 95% of the time.

Why? Not bacause it's a Cadillac but becasue the damn engine & craddle

have to be dropped down to service anything on that car. it's a giant

mess of trans. suspension, shorty-headers, giant valvecover & plastic

junk sandwitched between the firewall & radiator support. Even replacing

the battery is a major pain in the arse.

DOHC V8 + transverse mounted engine orientation = clusterfu*k!

I've had about a dozen major repairs that came up in that car in the

past four years, with the exception of one, the stupid air ride suspension

which $h! the bed at 135K, every one of my repairs can be contributed

directly or indirectly to the motor that's mounted flippin' sideways.

Most of these repairs were about twice as much money as they would

have been if the motor was the "correct" way. :AH-HA_wink:

Maybe it's just dumb luck but the closer to the 1950s my cars have been

the more solid and well built they are basic maintenance is a pleasant,

rewarding experience instead of a major headache & chore that leaves

you with a migrane, bleeding knuckles & leads to a dead end that seems

to always involve expensive parts and a dealer visit.

Let's compare two of my Cadillacs:

1986 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (RWD BOF)

and my 1997 Cadillac STS (Unibody FWD)

_________________________1986 _____________________ 1997

_________________________$600______________________$7900

milage when bought: _______ 172,000 _________________101,000

Milage when sold/now: ______187,000 _________________ 145,000

Repairs $$$________________$350 _____________________$3000

Ownership experience: ________A- _______________________ D+

The only reason the STS does not get a fat F is because the Northstar

motor still pulls like a big block chevy at WOT... the only reason why

the F.B. gets an A minus versus plus is because the Olds 307 it was

powered by is about as powerful as a Ecotec 2.4 ...litterally. Although

once it was roilling that car would surprise you. I did tripple digits in

it all the time and the torque going uphill was always adequate even

with 4 people in the car and 300 lbs. of tools/crap in the trunk.

[Flybrian]

Why? Not bacause it's a Cadillac but becasue the damn engine & craddle

have to be dropped down to service anything on that car. it's a giant

mess of trans. suspension, shorty-headers, giant valvecover & plastic

junk sandwitched between the firewall & radiator support. Even replacing

the battery is a major pain in the arse.

224221[/snapback]

I don't know where the battery is located on a K-body offhand, but on G-cars, its under the rear seat. Very easy to access. In general, again, I don't see why any sort of regular maintenance would require dropping the engine. In fact, as ridiculously tight as it is, its not that big of a challenge to even change the serpentine belt on one of these cars. Sure, it looks bad, but again...I really don't see the need to remove the engine assembly unless its a problem so severe, well, I wouldn't want to car in the first place, regardless of drivetrain. The only time the engine was dropped from my car was to replace a transmission speed sensor and frankly, that's not something I'd want to do myself.

the stupid air ride suspension

which $h! the bed at 135K

224221[/snapback]

I remember you mentioning this, too. The compressor motor isn't that expensive nor difficult to repair. Yes, a lift would be ideal, but not necessary. The other associated gear (air hoses, air shocks) are stupid simple to DIY.

[Sixty8panther]

Frankly, I could care less which wheels turn on my car as long as the rest of the car is good.

224218[/snapback]

Again this is just my oppinion so take it for waht it's worth:

If you're OCD about cleaning your car and keep it immaculite

but have no awareness of what whels propell you down the

road and do only the very basic maintenance then you are

NOT a real "car guy". Car guys roll up their sleeves and get

in there they tinker, they change oil and do tune ups, when

their transmission breaks do to drag racing they suck it up &

install a new one.

People who make a big deal out of changing an air filter and

carry little beyond a phillips screwdriver with them in their

trunk but polish/wash/detail their car everyday are nothing

but car owners who are OCD... not CAR ETHUSIASTS.

A car's drive wheels and orientation of its motor and how this

affects handeling dynamics etc. are far more relevant than

how much dirt is on your quarter panel.

If you are not AWARE & do not care which wheels are doing

what then your Aurora is nothing more than a d!ck extension.

My appologies in advance...

[Flybrian]

Again this is just my oppinion so take it for waht it's worth:

224230[/snapback]

Well, after reading that opinion, it and fifty cents will buy me a Coke.

Read what I said again.

[Cory Wolfe]

Again this is just my oppinion so take it for waht it's worth:

If you're OCD about cleaning your car and keep it immaculite

but have no awareness of what whels propell you down the

road and do only the very basic maintenance then you are

NOT a real "car guy". Car guys roll up their sleeves and get

in there they tinker, they change oil and do tune ups, when

their transmission breaks do to drag racing they suck it up &

install a new one.

People who make a big deal out of changing an air filter and

carry little beyond a phillips screwdriver with them in their

trunk but polish/wash/detail their car everyday are nothing

but car owners who are OCD... not CAR ETHUSIASTS.

A car's drive wheels and orientation of its motor and how this

affects handeling dynamics etc. are far more relevant than

how much dirt is on your quarter panel.

If you are not AWARE & do not care which wheels are doing

what then your Aurora is nothing more than a d!ck extension.

My appologies in advance...

224230[/snapback]

That... that is just asinine. What the hell on you on?

Well, after reading that opinion, it and fifty cents will buy me a Coke.

Read what I said again.

224234[/snapback]

[Sixty8panther]

I don't know where the battery is located on a K-body offhand, but on G-cars, its under the rear seat. Very easy to access. In general, again, I don't see why any sort of regular maintenance would require dropping the engine.

224228[/snapback]

The battery (in 1997 but not some other years) is under a

structural member (shaped like triangle) that bolts to the

fender & radiator support, it's recessed inside the fender

and there is NOT enough room to drop it down or pull it

out withough cutting & bruising yourself up pretty bad or

using some elaborate coathanger trick like I have.

It's 0.01 inches away from the fender, serpentine belt,

headlight, coolant overflow and abotu a dozen other

things. Also the positive terminal is in a great spot for

those piromaniacs who like to hurt or kill themselves by

electrocution when your wrench &/or hand touches the

terminal and fender/brace/radiator support at the same

time... good times.

Just one example: (I'm at work, no time for novels)

Blower motor meltdown due to a defectiove heat shield... the

inboard valvecover is about 0.75 inches away from the heater

core & blower motor so not only was this the cause of the

problerm to begin with that kind of clearance the whole motor,

trans & cradle asssembly have to be dropped. If you only had

an idea of how disgustingly expensive that was you'd be pissed

too. $480 after my employe discount at the dealership and I

was a friend of the mechanic who did it.

BTW:

If nothing else I know an engine mount has to be taken appart

on a G-body Riviera to do the serpentine belt FYI. PETARDED!

I remember you mentioning this, too. The compressor motor isn't that expensive nor difficult to repair. Yes, a lift would be ideal, but not necessary. The other associated gear (air hoses, air shocks) are stupid simple to DIY.

224228[/snapback]

Yeah well the front struts have been junk since about 120K miles.

When i say junk I mean they feel like they're chained down insead

of bolted to the substructure of the unibdy. The jiggle and bounce

with all the limp precision of hellen keller in an olympic ice skating

competition. How much are they you ask????

$500 a corner. So to get a new compressor and replace the two

front struts and rear air shocks it's like $2300 plus labor.

Thanks to a friendly C&G member who recomended Arnott I got

mine for $650 but have yet to buy the pump and install them....

the windshield breaking while the car was off the road & uninsured

at an asshole buddies house was the last straw for me. We bought

the Q45 and the STS just sits.... it's the red headed stepchild of the

fleet and will soon be parted out... I think I'll save and rebuild the

No* for some scummy 1920s T-bucket Rat Rod I'll pull out of a

Geogria swamp and drive cross country with the coil packs still on

the passanger side valvecover but the motor facing NO--->SO.

[Flybrian]

If nothing else I know an engine mount has to be taken appart

on a G-body Riviera to do the serpentine belt FYI. PETARDED!

224242[/snapback]

There should be a way to do it by going through the passenger-side wheel well. People on the Aurora forum I'm also on posted pictures of it and the only real hard part is wrapping the belt around one of the lower pullies. A stupid way? Maybe. But to me, no more stupid than going through the same area to change the headlamp on a vintage Z.

$500 a corner. So to get a new compressor and replace the two

front struts and rear air shocks it's like $2300 plus labor.

224242[/snapback]

That has got to be Cadillac-related. Seriously. Parts for the Aurora (and Riv) are expensive, but not to that level. Of course, your Seville is the older K-body, so parts are likely quite different in many areas. I believe G- is more of an upgraded and more 'user-friendly' K-body in terms of evolution, hence why parts aren't that much. My rear air shocks cost $60 for the pair and the struts are probably $300 for both.

We bought

the Q45 and the STS just sits.... it's the red headed stepchild of the

fleet and will soon be parted out... I think I'll save and rebuild the

No* for some scummy 1920s T-bucket Rat Rod I'll pull out of a

Geogria swamp and drive cross country with the coil packs still on

the passanger side valvecover but the motor facing NO--->SO.

224242[/snapback]

Make some sort of cheesy-ass Mafia short with XP. Involve his Lufthansa Heist limo somehow and blow up the Seville.

[Cory Wolfe]

There should be a way to do it by going through the passenger-side wheel well. People on the Aurora forum I'm also on posted pictures of it and the only real hard part is wrapping the belt around one of the lower pullies. A stupid way? Maybe. But to me, no more stupid than going through the same area to change the headlamp on a vintage Z.

224254[/snapback]

Want to know what's more stupid? Having to remove the headlight and the fender just to change a parking light bulb. This is the exact reason I only have one parking light, unless it decides to burn out as well, then I won't have any. I love my Milly.

[Sixty8panther]

Sure... maybe we can make a gangsta' flick to

funf dour TIGHT WHIPS extracuricular activities.

The only way it would work would be if the quality

and cinemantography was about the quality of the

Zapruda film but at a much more archane level &

with more grainy film... in B&W and those little

fuzzy lint thingies & dirt would be whizzing by the

lens like in a WWII combat documentary.

I'm not sure how many of you ever flip open a

"Sport Compact CAr" magazine nevermind subscribe

but this they had a pretty funny article about a year

ago or so...

They took a (2005?) Nissan SE-R and disassembled it to

the bare bones unibody & then went further to the point

of cutting down the car to just a floorboard structure,

engine, trans, motor, radiator support, driver's seat &

controls and four whels... there was NOTHING left that

was not absolutely essential to the car's ability to pull

itself down the road... by ther end it did like a 12 sec. 1/4

mile or something crazy stupid like that since it only

weighed IIRC about 1300 lbs.

That would be funny to do with the STS.

[Cory Wolfe]

Haha... That's actually the one issue of Sport Compact Car I have.

[Delta Force79]

Sixty8 I can compare anything I want. I am a car guy have been since I can remember, I've been able to name almost every car on the road since before I was old enough to read....explain that....my family will attest to that, futhermore I don't need to pull a tranny or a motor to be a car guy, I like to keep my cars clean, when they need work done to them, if it is something I can't do I'll bring it to a shop. Isn't that what they're for to begin with?

my 1979 Olds has 170 horsepower in a V8, my V6 has 205 w/o a supercharger....I think that is kinda funny, and shows how far cars have come since then. Dude spare me your bull$h!, you bought a Q45.....and worst yet a second generation Q45 which has about as much personality as a dead fish. I'll take the STS....and its problems, thank you. What does your Maxima weigh? sure it has RWD what kind of traction do you get in the snow considering that thing probably weighs as much as a foot of snow. My Delta 88 only weigh 3800 lbs, but I can whip that bastard in the snow like nobody's business. I love CARS hence why I can own a RWD car and a FWD drive car and love them both for what they are.

BTW a Lincoln Town Car is rugged luxury? I guess thats why they're the taxi cab of choice for most people, I'm trying to remember the last time I've seen a civillian Town car that isn't as old as I am. You hate FWD but yet you bought a Seville, you hate FWD but yet XP's Riv is considered a tight whip, and as a matter of fact so is mine according to you....

[Sixty8panther]

Sixty8 I can compare anything I want.  I am a car guy have been since I can remember, I've  been able to name almost every car on the road since before I was old enough to read....explain that....

224469[/snapback]

Likewise... even though I grew up in Eastern Europe where

at age 6 I was identifying Skodas, Tatras, Renaults, Ladas,

BMWs, Volgas, Mercedes Benzes, Trabants, Simcas, Fiats,

Peugeots, Wartburgs, Renaults.... well you get the point.

Then at 8 years old we moved to Boston & I discovered

that BMWs and Porsches were NOT the coolest cars ever,

GM cars from the 1950s and 1960s were! But now I'm of

the oppinion that it was all downhill after the late 1930s.

As awsome as the 1950s and 1960s cars are, the 1930s

stuff is by far the most well built and rightfully so, most

highly respected. Cars like Cadillacs, Auburns, Packards

and of course Duesenbergs of the 1930s did more

innovation in that one decade than Toyota, Honda,

Nissan & mazda have done collectively in their entire

length of existance. I'm dead serious about that.

They were over-enginered, styled as rolling works of art

(and in many cases hand built one offs) they were

built on frames stronger and more impressive than most

of today's 1-ton trucks and the attention to detail will

NEVER be touched nevermind surpassed, the only cars

that even come close are super-high-end exotics like

VW/AUDI's $1.5 million Bugatti W16 Veyron.

my 1979 Olds has 170 horsepower in a V8, my V6 has 205 w/o a supercharger....I think that is kinda funny, and shows how far cars have come since then.

224469[/snapback]

I understand the point you're trying to make

and it is a valid one, horsepower numbers

went up a LOT from 1979 to 1995. The way

you are going abotu proving your point is

IMHO retarded.... First rule of comparing

power outputs is you never compare a mix

of natrually aspirated versus SC/turbo.

Your V8 is carburated and lacks a supercharger...

The 95 Riviera is not only boosted by a roots type

blower but it has multi-port EFI.

Why don't we instead compare a turbocharged

flat-6 out of a 1979 Porsche to a Ford 3.8 liter

V6 out of a 1995 Ford Taurus.

Dude spare me your bull$h!, you bought a Q45.....and worst yet a second generation Q45 which has about as much personality as a dead fish.  I'll take the STS....and its problems, thank you.

224469[/snapback]

The STS was the girlfriend's DREAM car, I bought it off the

dealership for $7900 about 12 minutes after I traded it in

from a guy who bought a 2001 Silverado off of me. it was

a mistake but you live and learn. Cadillac is still my favorite

brand of all time. I think the 1931 Pinninfarina-bodied V16

boat-tail roadster is the coolest car of all time!

(IMHO even cooler than Duesenbergs, though it IS close)

What does your Maxima weigh? sure it has RWD what kind of traction do you get in the snow considering that thing probably weighs as much as a foot of snow.  My Delta 88 only weigh 3800 lbs, but I can whip that bastard in the snow like nobody's business.  I love CARS hence why I can own a RWD car and a FWD drive car and love them both for what they are.

224469[/snapback]

Dude, ask XP how much trouble I had in my

2800lbs. Maxima in the snow last winter. I've

had several RWD "winter beaters" over the

years and the Datsun does as well as any

other lightweight RWD car with IRS & decent

tires, which is to say GREAT as long as you

know how to drive in those conditions.

XP or any of my other buddies will be happy

to tell you how well I drive my RWd $h! in the

snow. I can even powerslide around a snow

covered offramp wiht the best of them, but

if you just want to get from point-a-to-B in a

bad blizzard it's all about restraint with the gas

pedal & large doses of common sense mixed

with healthy amounts of caution.

I never got stuck in the Datsun, anywhere. Ever.

Of course after driving a 377 horsepower 1968

Camaro with bald 12" wide rear tires through 40

miles of snow covered N.E. roads blizzard back

in 2003 it takes a LOT to impress me. On that

same ride, while my (Corvette ZR-1 wide) drag

radials were making that crunching sound in the

fresh snow as I was doing 35mph on the highway

I saw two funny things, a 4x4 Ranger and a

S-10 Blazer 4x4 that were stuck in snow banks

off of Rt.495. I used common sense and got

home even though my pregnant girlfriend was

sweating bullets thinking I was either dead or

dying in a snow bank somewhere. The car

never saw more than 40pmh that night even

though the speed limit was 65mph 50% of the

way home and the tach never showed more

than 1500 rpm except for durring my victory

donut in the supermarkt parking lot in front of

house while a plow truck with yellow beacons

pushed piles of snow larger than most VWs.

After that experience I have NO sympathy

for anyone who can not drive RWD in the winter.

to me it just means you're too cheap to get snow

tires and or you're a pu$$y. I did the

mathematically impossible in a musclecar but

some yuppie douchebag can not get through a

light snowfall in a BMW 5-series of 2wd F-150?

Teh problem is the "loose nut behind the wheel"

not the RWD vehicle in question.

have I gotten stuck before? SURE! Probably

about a dozen times in the last 10 years...

maybe more. Has it ever been the vehicle's

fault? FU*K NO!

First time I got stuck in the snow was in my

FWD Sunbird cause I drove, like a moron,

into a parking lot covered with 18" of snow.

i thought it was not "that deep". And since

then I've pulled my share of stupidity.

You live and learn. If you drive a RWD

car with bald tires in a very low traction

situation and you have no sand with you

you need to suck it up and admit you

goofed. You don't blame it on RWD and

go trade in your F-body for an Accord...

not if you have a spine.

Do NOT blame stupidity on RWD.

RWD cars do not get stuck in the snow...

STUPID PEOPLE in RWD CARS get stuick

in the snow!

BTW a Lincoln Town Car is rugged luxury? I guess thats why they're the taxi cab of choice for most people, I'm trying to remember the last time I've seen a civillian Town car that isn't as old as I am.

224469[/snapback]

There's not too many Quadrasteer Silverados on the road

either but that does nto mean those trucks are not great

vehicles or that they're not better than the crap that

sells like hotcakes.

You hate FWD but yet you bought a Seville, you hate FWD but yet XP's Riv is considered a tight whip, and as a matter of fact so is mine according to you....

224469[/snapback]

Ummm... you might be taking this T.W.C.C. thing a bit too

serious, you know it's kind of tongue in cheek right? I mean

your Riviera is a very cool car and your Delta 88 even more

so but there's some not-very-cool cars in Tight Whips too,

we do NOT discriminate based on our personal tastes. One

of these days if WMJ buys a Yugo or if some other nut on

C&G buys a Hyundai Pony we'll still make him a sig & include

him/her in our car club.

[Sixty8panther]

.....anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I'm at work so I dont' have the luxury or the

time for spell check adn long posts, but here

is a Ford timeline to make it fair, if anyone's

1970s cars should be ridiculed it's FoMoCo's

[Sixty8panther]

If that sort of "progress" had persisted then

we'd all be driving these today:

[Cory Wolfe]

Cars like Cadillacs, Auburns, Packards

and of course Duesenbergs of the 1930s did more

innovation in that one decade than Toyota, Honda,

Nissan & mazda have done collectively in their entire

length of existance. I'm dead serious about that.

That's definitely subjective. While not automotive related, Honda has their robotics , not to mention their engine technology and racing applications (regardless of your opinion of that).

I understand the point you're trying to make

and it is a valid one, horsepower numbers

went up a LOT from 1979 to 1995. The way

you are going abotu proving your point is

IMHO retarded.... First rule of comparing

power outputs is you never compare a mix

of natrually aspirated versus SC/turbo.

Your V8 is carburated and lacks a supercharger...

The 95 Riviera is not only boosted by a roots type

blower but it has multi-port EFI.

Why don't we instead compare a turbocharged

flat-6 out of a 1979 Porsche to a Ford 3.8 liter

V6 out of a 1995 Ford Taurus.

Unless you can't read, his Riveria is naturally aspirated. "My V6 has 205 w/o a supercharger." W/o means without, FYI. And to add to what he said, My 2.5L engine makes as much power as his 5.7L engine. Both naturally aspirated. 

There's not too many Quadrasteer Silverados on the road

either but that does nto mean those trucks are not great

vehicles or that they're not better than the crap that

sells like hotcakes.

Yeeeah, but the Town Car sucks ass. That's reality.

224500[/snapback]

[Sixty8panther]

First off, my bad on overlooking the (205/N.A.) 3800 comment.

My bad.

Sixty8: Cars like Cadillacs, Auburns, Packards

and of course Duesenbergs of the 1930s did more

innovation in that one decade than Toyota, Honda,

Nissan & mazda have done collectively in their entire

length of existance. I'm dead serious about that.

B.V.8891:

That's definitely subjective. While not automotive related, Honda has their robotics , not to mention their engine technology and racing applications (regardless of your opinion of that).

I will answer this in very simple terms:

1932 SJ Duesenbergs: the original "HIGH REV TUNERS"

- DOHC (32 valve inline

- Supercharged

- Outstanding horsepower/weight & horsepower/liter ratio

The Cord L29 and 810 Coffin Nose.

FWD is NOTHING new, be it good or bad it was successfully

implemented into production cars in 1929 with the L29.

1934 Chrysler/DeSoto/Dodge/Plymouth AIRFLOW

Not only is irt more aerodymanic than some modern cars

but it introduced the masses to UNIBODY construction.

------

I could go on and on.... 90% of Automotive innovation

was done in the 1900-1942 period & it just so happens

that most of these innovations went unoticed untill

a lot later when some other post-war vehicle claimed

the benefits of a particular recycled technology or

invention.

Balthazar, JamesB & Fly can tell you much more

than I, I like to do the trivia and all but I'm not the

foremost expert in this stuff... there's a lot of 411

out there about the amazing pre-war era. XP also

has an amazing knowledge of pre-war cars, esp.

Brass era to 1930s cars.

[Delta Force79]

Just a couple of things, one I was camparing a 3800 N/A I said without a S/C, with the s/c the horsepower is 225 in my Riv. Second I think you mean the 3.0 V6 in the 1995 Taurus as the 3.8 was used in RWD/4X4 applications then. Lasty I know the TWCC is all in fun and a C&G inside joke...but hey you gotta admit, my Riv is pretty Tight

BTW that Cord 812 you posted is FWD :AH-HA_wink:

[Sixty8panther]

BTW that Cord 812 you posted is FWD :AH-HA_wink:

224832[/snapback]

So is the L29. I posted it for that reason in response to B.V.

Point being that FWD is neither a modern invention or in

any way shape or form more revolutionary or unique, and

also that the Japanese just recycle old ideas, they suck at

coming up with anything original.

The only revolutionary FWD car that was made after WWII

is the Austin Mini. In that application a transverse mounted

motor was utilized to the maximum benefit.

[Cory Wolfe]

You act as if I didn't know that. I was just pointing out some of Honda's innovations, namely robotics.

[Flybrian]

Honda is very much an innovator if not so much in cars as the others but in powerplant design. To not respect - or at the very least, acknowledge - that fact is missing out on alot.

Mazda has had its fair share of practical innovation when it comes to rotary motors. Nissan admittedly hasn't done as much. Toyota may very well be considered an 'innovator' in hybrid technology, but this ignores the fact that their biggest skill lies in marketing it as well as hybrid technology's preexistence. GM, for one, was building diesel hybrids long before modern Toyota was even formed.

[Sixty8panther]

Well I for one will never agree to give Honda as a car brand

any more respect than I would give any innovative 1920s

"manufacturer" that consisted of a guy with a big barn who

took Model T chassies and reverse enginered them while

making his own improvements & turned out some intersting

"buckboard" with his own hands at a rate of one a month.

Honda has yet to really impress me. Mostly I think they will

continue to make over-hyped, underwhelming cookie cutter

bull$h! that women/asians/liberals buy & then trade in three

years later on a Camry. Then the used Honda is bought by

some ghetto-fabulous punk kid with an expense account with

JC Whitney catalog who invests anywhere between $$20 and

$40,000 into the car, not in maintenance but on a complete

"Kustom"/"super tight"/"off the hook" set of wheels/body kit

DVDs/X-box theatre trunklid/wide-body fenders/eibach

suspension/turbo/NOS.... you get the point.

In other words... a car that is meant to be a piece of $hit

commuter pod like a "Honda Civic Luxury edition" which is

what I like ot call the Acura RSX/Integra, or worse, an

American spec. Civic or Accord get turned into a rolling

statement of disgustingly poor taste.

[Flybrian]

I could also point out equally goofball V6 Mustang "5.0s", IROC Camaros with molding falling off the sides, jacked-up Dodge Ram I Have No Johnson Editions, and innumerable lame-ass Impala SS wannabe fools with Caprices painted black, Impala glue-ons, and pasted-on quarter window shades that imitate a dogleg.

The aftermarket has nothing to do with the manufacturer, especially since Civics have fallen off the tuner charts circa 2001. The fact is Honda has done beaucoup innovation in terms of engine technology. Their cars are generally boring as hell, but this has nothing to do with the vast inventory of engines and related equipment they manufacturer.

Honda's prowess in powerplants is similar to GM, though Honda thrives from the automobile down (mowers, outboards, etc), GM built or currently builds world-class engines and powertrains for armored vehicles, tanks, ships, aircraft, and locomotives. Imagine the juggernaut that could exist of Honda and GM cooperated more in this field - it would be a glorious new age of smooth-shifting ATVs and high-mileage armored recon vehicles.

[occupant]

I must be very conventional when it comes to cars. I'll take a full-size six-passenger sedan or eight-passenger wagon over any other kind of car. I'm not the kind of person to drive a BMW or a sports car. The sportiest thing I've ever owned was a wrecked 1985 VW Scirocco and that's only because I traded my 1986 Tempo to an ex-girlfriend so she could go back and forth to work without freezing her butt off in the Scirocco with no rear window. And I only owned it long enough to run around for awhile, enjoy the shifter action, learn how to push-start a manual when the starter dies, and then drive it to the junkyard for $100 cash. Which was what I was going to do with the rusty Tempo that spring, anyway.

I like big cars and I cannot lie.

I'm a sucker for rear-wheel drive.

'Cause when I'm rolling on the highway

and I see a pothole headed my way

I'm softly sprung...

And I float all over that bump

no pain transfers to my rump

I barely even hear a thump

cause a bench seat's the only way to hump

Drive wheels in the back...

[Sixty8panther]

Occupant:

Dude.... did you come up with that yourself?

Either way it's &@$% awsome, can I borrow

that for my sig? Love it.