oldshurst442

That...my friend I never knew!!! I owned a 1999 Olds Alero... I knew EXACTLY what truck you were referring too, and every time I used to see one on the road, there was always something puzzling to me, like a deja vu feeling... I did not know what was that familiarity feeling I had about that truck...but thanks to you...now I know!!! And I totally see it NOW that you pointed it out! You really dont know how happy you just made me feel!!! No...no sarcasm. I promise! You really made me happy!

Well..yes! Words on a screen...can be quite difficult to detect, um, sarcasm. PS: If you couldnt detect it, my apology is...um...sarcastic...

Give it a rest...I agree...especially when that particular Saturn has been out of production for over a decade. And no, just because it could be the same Saturn part number, it does not take away from the CT5 being a Cadillac. Its just a bloody window for God's sake.... PS: It may or may not be... It probably take MORE engineering dollars to purposely fit that old parts number piece into a newly engineered car on a completely different platform just to save a few nickels and dimes for an already available number than start with a clean slate piece. It looks the same, in the pictures. Its probably a whole different part. PSS: The reason why I say its a different part all together, GM would have to purposely engineering the roofline angles and slopes of the CT5 to be the EXACT identical roofline and slope to the ION, which would affect the platform...remember, the ION was a subcompact. The CT5 is a midsizer. One was a FWD unibody while the CT5 is a RWD unibody on two completely different platforms that have NOTHING in common. Maybe Im wrong, but when I read that certain platforms dont lend well to different wheelbases to house different types of vehicles, well, Im thinking that on a midsized RWD platform to get all the right ROUNDED ARCs and angles, widths and lengths, thickness... JUST to fit a window piece that went on a FWD subcompact, seems a tad ludicrous for me!

splitting hairs and being defensive... cool with me. Everything is all right! Not on the Tahoe using a version of a Silverado chassis and the 'Slade being on the Tahoe chassis... In which Cadillac, since the 3rd gen 'Slade has done a fantabulous job of using MAC lipstick on it... But your whole notion trying to troll Dfelt because he said this M-B was a pig with lipstick on it... Why even bring up the Escalade in the 1st place? Its OK...I really dont care about us bickering back and forth... Ive moved on from that. Sorry I even bothered with this discussion. Ill just refrain from posting in the future regarding sensless trolling...

MMMM... maybe 20 years ago...you are right with that comment. But since the 3rd and 4rth générations of the Escalade, not at all accurate...but yeah...trying a tad too hard to troll Dfelt, tho. Hey... even the 2nd gen Escalade was not that bad...better than this rendering anyhow...(and yes rendering as we do not know if M-B will be doing this crossover monstrosity that way...)

Wrong answer

And here we are... NONE of us have complained and dissed this design! Other than Dfelt (And Paolino) but he ended up getting trolled for it too! Yet we all vehemently try to find ANY LITTLE THING Cadillac does and we harp on it. And THAT is the surprising thing...NOBODY has BLASTED it like how the XT6 has been blasted, or the new CT5... THAT is what I find shameful. If anything, this crossover thing is unispiring and ugly and far from luxury a vehicle can get...(on the outside) Mercedes posted this rendering a while back ago...I saw an AMC Eagle sedan then with the design, as I do now! Horrible, for a 2020 luxury vehicle!

I guess, it all comes down to that statement. I agree with your post 100%, BTW!

I saw new Honda Accord in the side profile with the same type of funky C-pillar treatment. Like a retarded Hofmeister kink. But I happen to like the new Honda Accord and I dont mind the retarded Hofmeister kink both on the supposed CT5 or the Acccord. The only thing to bother me is why would a Cadillac try to look like a Honda?

Actually, American manufacturing and engineering of aircraft and automobiles HAVE adapted to the Metric system. No choice as both industries for manufacturing different parts are made world wide for Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc... So there is that. Not necessarily. Its easier to scale up and down the different sizes in terms of calculations are concerned especially for engineering purposes, and in a nano technology world that we are living, Metric is the way to go, but not necessarily superior. A 9mm bullet is a good sized bullet to cause damage in someone. But an almost equivalent .357 in magnum form is so much better for stopping power. I know that there is a 10mm bullet nowadays but Im assuming that a .44 is a tad larger, but I also know that a .44 magnum makes huuuuge holes in people. Maybe in today's world, Dirty Harry's pistol aint sexy as its only got 6 shots and an automatic has 15 or so, maybe more with today's crazy magazine technology, but I also know that all the rage of 9mm Glocks of the 1990s has worn down too, and that is why a 10mm bullet is now offered, but again, nothing beats the stop them dead in their tracks .44 magnum style! Im sorry that I went all guns on you in the automotive forum, but no, not everything Metric is superior. Feet and inches, still have merit. Horsepower and torque seem to be best suited for ICE. ICE is not dead yet... 1 horsepower is what work 1 average Clydesdale horse can do. And the Imperial system did a fine job in creating a very good calculating system that works just fine. And its easy to visualize. A 300 horsepower car is calcualted damned close to what 300 Clydesdale horses can do...and we could actually visualize that kind of power even if we dont know how much power that really is... But seriously...can a Metric user honestly say that he knows what 223.71 kilowatts looks like? (that would be 300 mechanical horsepower) Can a metric user honestly say that he could actually visualize how tall is 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters? 1.92 meters? 1.76 meters? One could get used to it, sure. But... Like I said, meters and even decimeters, those units are to big for humans to visualize in space, and centimeters are too small to bunch up together. Shyte...metric users dont even use the decimeter when describing the height of individuals. Shyte...on my drivers license, Im listed as 1.7 meters tall, not 17 decimeters, but 1.7 meters...because Canada uses the metric system, duh...and its been 50 years or more that we use the metric system, yet when a criminal is described on the news, feet and inches are used to identify the perp. Maybe, sometimes meters is used ALONG SIDE feet and inches... I know Europeans actually do know how tall 1.76 meters is (visually in their heads)...but I still challenge them to tell me how many meters 1 person is standing from another, with great precision as 1.76 or 1.89... An imperial user actually CAN be precise using feet though...(visually in their heads) The Imperial system has its merits...it would be stupid to let the Imperial system disappear all together...

There is still a place for Imperial measurements in today's world. Even for the rest of the world that uses the Metric system. Although I find some Americans refusing to learn the Metric system as stupid...I also find Metric users stupid when they make fun of Americans for using the Imperial system. feet and inches is still ideal for someone to describe height because feet is the perfect size.One Meter is too big to visualize. Centimeters too small to bunch them all up. Nobody uses the decimeter... 1.87 meters? 187 centimeters? 18.7 decimeters??? Sure, one could adapt... 6 feet 1 inches is simpler isnt it than all three metric measurements?! Fahrenheit, although I personally get confused with it, I ould deal with it as I work with Fahrenheit in my restaurant kitchen. Well, the Quebec health department makes us work with both Celsius and Fahrenheit, but I think its because Fahrenheit is more precise? So, Americans shouldnt be forced to change, but Americans should learn the Metric system. Actually, the world over shouldnt have dropped the Imperial system all together because it has its merits too! As far as Cadillac goes: ^^^ THIS!!!

The Hellcat purrs, the Hellephant GROWLS!!!

That kitty could get quite thirsty, yes. But she rewards you with some awesome purrs when you treat her just right.

The Mustang and Camaro have gone with base 4 cylinder engines. I dont see as how the Challenger cant do the same. Plus, the Challenger has gone all wheel drive too on the 6 cylinder version. So, its not as if the Dodge engineers and marketing folk are afraid to mess with a supposed muscle car formula... If anything, with 4 cylinder pony cars from GM and Ford and AWD with Mopar in theirs, I think the Dodge engineers and marketing folk are full aware of the possibilities to keep the Challenger and Charger nameplates alive. 'Tis not in Auburn Hills that is the problem, but the "F" part of FCA... If the "F" part in FCA would release some R&D funds for the "C" part which includes Dodge and not totally soak up the Jeep and Ram profits only for Alpha Romeo, Fiat and Maserati, then Dodge and Chrysler will survive just fine, if not...

There was even talk about resurrecting the Barracuda name plate and making that a smaller and lighter convertible based on the Giorgio platform. And If Im not mistaken, this was why all the talk was about how the Challenger would also be on the Giorgio platform too. Or something like that... All those 5 year product reviews that Marchionne did every 6 months...had FCA projects going in all directions, then cancelling, then re-approving, then shelving, then reassessing, then pleading to other manufacturers to merge or form partnerships with, then trying to force partnerships with other manufacturers, then seeing nobody is interested, then issuing more 5 year product reviews every 6 months going in all directions, then cancelling, then re-approving, then shelving, then reassessing....rinse and repeat. Before I forget, somewhere in there in between all those 5 year product reviews every 6 months, FCA separated with Ferrari. Probably a good thing for Ferrari. As for the C in the FCA part which includes Dodge. The future looks grim Im afraid...

I agree with you on the top speed part, but the 0-60 and quarter mile stuff on the Model Y is pretty fast tho. Just like the other 3 Teslas. I guess the Model Y cant be a winner on speed on all fronts then? Because I dont know what else to say about it.

Yeah...I heard about Adidas too! Twice cockblocked. LOL Ironic to the S3X part and what I just said in that when we were young , we used to say that Adidas stands for All Day I Dream About Sex

I thought it was Mercedes... Cool, it was Ford.

And that is why the deliberately tried to sabotage Bombardier's C Series and the sales they made to Delta... Forcing Bombardier, because although the 3rd largest airplane manufacturer in the world after Airbus and Boeing, still very very small, to partner up Airbus. Airbus gets a brand new, state of the art aircraft filling a very lucrative niche, for peanuts and eventually will be buying up the the rights to the airplane... Bombardier dumped billions on this, pissing off many Canadians in the process... (there are many reasons for this though) In other words, Boeing phoqued Canada (Quebec) because they did not want that competition, but got it anyway, allowing their bigger rival to acquire the airplane for free practically... And now ironically, Boeing is in deep doodoo over the Max 8

That and European countries, other than England, stand by their automotive companies no matter what they do... Germans will never turn their backs on the German makes. Proof: Diesel sales in Germany are on the uptick and Im willing to bet the farm the German brands are profiting from that... https://www.motortrader.com/motor-trader-news/automotive-news/january-diesel-sales-increase-bucks-trend-germany-07-02-2019 As far as Boeing goes, I read: https://nationalpost.com/news/heres-the-terrifying-reason-the-737-max-8-is-grounded And apparantly the last accident, the 737 Max 8 was bobbing up and down as well, but the reasons for it doing that is still under investigation. And THAT is another reason why I dont think autonomous driving for cars will EVER happen! Airplanes have had computer flying the aircraft and controlling its flight characteristics for as it seems nowadays...forever. And as you can see, still not perfected. Awesome tech, as a F-117 could not stay in the air without computer control, but accidents do happen, as we could see...and pilots themselves are furious when they cant physically themselves control the airplane... Pilots, are still in the cockpit making decisions on flight controls, yet silicon valley thinks that an autonomous pod without a human being being aware of the driving situations will work out?

Mr. Balthy. Its part of the sex appeal of driving and owning a Tesla. Teslas are not just same ole same ole, save the planet from ourselves electric vehicles. When unveiling the Model 3 he was quoted in saying: "At Tesla, we dont make slow cars." Tesla's 4 vehicles now officially spell S-3-X-Y. 3 because Mercedes blocked him for using the letter E. SEXY And speed is sexy. And speed, apparently, sells. And what seems to be amusing is that Tesla engineers are harnessing what electric motors can do in propelling a vehicle with much speed and getting solid range with the batteries. Im sure that if Tesla engineers geared the motors and the batteries and the computer software towards less speed, that the range would be slightly more than what Tesla vehicles currently actually offer, but Im also sure that talking about range without the speed might be less sexy and therefore a lot less sales. Its Tesla's marketing and image. And it seems to be working. I wouldnt change up the Model Y's image to be different from the other 3 Tesla models. As far as the shares going down...maybe its because Tesla has hinted that in the next quarter, Tesla might be losing money...again...and therefore hocus pocus smoke and mirror announcements of another model might not have deflected that reality...

Toughie... It all dépends on the context and tone of voice, I guess. Picture a Sam Malone of Cheers fame. Or Dan Fielding of Night Court fame. In other words, a man whore. A lothario. A woman walks into a bar, but she is NOT sleazily dressed, normal attire waiting for her girlfriends/boyfriend/working collègues to arrive and this cruizer guy strikes up a conversation and it lends to say to her "You're a lot to visually process"... In today's PC, #metoo, world, not a flattering thing to say. Hell, in that scenario that I described, even in the loosey goosey era of the 1970s and 1980s, it be a hard sell... Same scenario, but the girl looks lke she wants to be picked up by a guy to have a one night stand (does that even happen anymore?) I dont think its offensive. But, if two friends are talking. Two very good friends, when consensuel flirtation has taken place many times before, I do not see any harm there. Especially if the lady has worn something tres tres sexy, not necessarily anything revealing, but tres tres sexy, I dont think its offensive at all... If two not so quite friendly acquaintances but friends just the same are talking and are together in a casual surrounding and there has been some very mild flirtations going on, and the guy says that...in a very funny and charming way, not harmful at all. But if he says that staring at the girls breasts, drooling like a pig, well...offensive. Now...if the lady happens to be..fat. Well...not a very nice thing to say, no matter what the tone suggests.

Razor-slit headlights and who inspired what? Maybe Transformers Camaro Bumblee in 2014 movie perhaps? I was always intrigued by the Soul's styling inside and out. The EV version is quite interesting too. What you posted there is the next gen Soul? Looks damn fine if you ask me. I like. Those razor slit headlights give it a sense of class in my opinion.

I could live with the term deflection. It is more accurate to describe it that way, sure. ? I agree to all that paragraph 100%. Many people continue to diss the 400 for only having 180 HP on the Olds engine (and as high as 200 and 220 for the Poncho) but what they do not know, despite all that power robbing smog equipment underneath, that the Pontiac 400 had 325 ft/lbs of torque @ 2200 RPM. That was enough to get the Trans Am moving very quickly. The Ferrari 308 of that time period made 252 HP...more than the Trans Am but still paltry to what the muscle cars just a short 3-4 years prior made and in torque...a very laughable 209 ft-lbs @5000 RPM. But nobody laughs at Ferrari...I never understood that. I will agree to the 3.8 liter (I must have some contrast between you and I. Im Canadian so Ill do this in liters. Besides, for me, anything below 4.9 liters is in the metric system. Above that is in cubic inches.) being engineered the way it was with the turbos and the pace cars, was indeed targeted for the younger buyers, but cubic inch V8s was still the way to go and Pontiac had the advantage here. At least Buick foreshadowed to what was going to come in the next decade, but I guess GM beancounters put an end to brand identity when all GM brands had lost that freedom to be independent. I guess, for all that ambiguity on my part, for not really caring to be precise, I was spot on with the 455 going away when I implied that it did. COOL! But I appreciate the more detailed response from you here! And I REALLY appreciate you correcting yourself. That is super cool with me!

And while semantics IS what you said... Semantics is also trying to focus on parts of a conversation that have nothing to do with the discussion on hand... I said that the GS above was a 1973?. It went away...1-2 years... You telling me it stayed another 1-2 years therefore you are wrong about Buick... is semantics... Me saying that the CAN-AM Poncho is the only Colonnade worth mentioning after 1975 and you posting pics of a pace car Buick 3.8 turbocharged V6 when I said the 455 went away and Buick started developing the 3.8 and 5-6 years later we get the GN and GNX is...still semantics because in the grand scheme of things, without the minute details of getting the timeline right to the minute and second, I got it right...no...not with the precision of a Bulova moon watch in the timeline side of things...but my words were still true...countering with bad badge engineering pics from what the other poster was trying to convey with said bad badge engineering Buicks, which was waaaaay out in left field... But...it is what it is...