balthazar

Siloam GA 1941 :

No- that's not 'balanced' at all. Tesla truck cyber-images of interior don't come remotely close to an F-150 Platinum interior; it's more akin to the entry-level Ford at $30-someK.

Staggeringly generic with it’s slab sides, blocky tails & single exhaust, but it’s a bentley: Bentley = always uninspired.

Did the brakes- fronts were fine, rears were getting close to min but were glazed. Changed out the rotors & pads. I think I need to go back in & make sure the pads slide more freely, tho- I think they may be dragging some. Parking brake is toast- shoe linings fell out on one side, and the cable snapped about 4 years back. I really should get that stuff together. Also need to reweld one upper shock mount. I took the valve stem insert OUT of the spare tire- the rim has gotten so rusted : A. I'd never use it on the truck, B. It just occurred to me it's possible it might blow off the rim, and C. the spare lowering mechanism doesn't work anyway! ? Going to cut the spare down- why carry the weight? Got a list of things to do before winter gets here... but every day I manage to duck work is because it's raining.

Can't throw any wrenches because it's quite true. I drive too fast, but on the other hand, I coast down / brake like an 18-wheeler.

Rare AWD version:

OK, Robert; settle down.

• Equinox is several hundred pounds heavier than the Malibu tho. • I plugged the tire with no problems.

I heard the machine-thread bolt go ino the tire, but I was doing over 60 and 20 mins from home. I hoped it was merely a rock, but :

Yet, of COURSE, it'll still show almost the exact same front seat hip room as the rear seat hip room.

Looks like a mild refresh of a 25-yr old Golf.

I haven't been in / don't know anyone with a 'K5', but I can report the Malibu 1.5T is anything but "useless". I drive my wife's car quite a bit, and frequently find myself out-accelerating all other traffic & doing 80. Perhaps it's just this singular car, but it hauls ass with ease. 450-mile moving window of MPG says 33.4 as of today. It had 1 repair (2016, 46K miles)- the start-stop didn't restart I think 2 times, other than that it's been a very nice lil sedan.

$68 grand (to start). And the ‘electrics are for high rollers’ approach continues.

Interesting juxtaposition:

hyundai - after the years of pushing sub-standard junk at cutthroat prices here at their start- should earn scorn & disdain for a solid quarter century, regardless of their current quality level.

‘66 Toro ~

Had stripped/ painted the trunklid hinges & torsion bars, reinstalled yesterday. Been working on prepping some of the dash panels for painting- primer/sand/prime/sand sort of thing. Still pondering sending off interior bits for rechroming... the costs are high but they aren't going to get any cheaper... ? EDIT :: Put trunklid back on and the trunk 'receiver' catch in (it was cleaned & zinc plated). I believe I still have to drill the package shelf speaker bolt holes... and I have already-made panels that will block off the view of the back of the rear seat (the 3 trapezoid holes seen in the above), so I'll knock that off the list, too.

I was inder the impression old MGs were basically worthless. Used to see plenty - haven’t noticed one in probably a decade. The depreciation on this madly overpriced clunker would be a bunker buster.

So the Cadillac is a far better value.

Today a NASCAR racer is about 3200 lbs with 4.22 gears. In '67, the minimum car weight was 3500. Having trouble finding period axle ratios but seeing '64 Plymouth with 4.30 gears. Compression then was commonly 11:1. A lot of similarities in the specs. The monster advantage today is insane aerodynamics. I looked around for period vs. modern cd numbers with little luck. A '69 Charger Daytona has a cd of .28, but as power & speeds rose, NASCAR utilized increased downforce, which also raises the cd. I'd still bet "air management" is the biggest difference in then vs. now.

Generally-speaking, yes. But 425-450 HP in 1964 still pushed a block with the aerodynamics of a brick to 175 MPH on the track. These were large displacements (limited to 427 CI), circa '70 the large motors flirted with restrictor plates to compete more evenly with the 300-some CI motors coming up. 358 CI became increasingly common and soon; the displacement limit.

Now, and in recent decades- sure. But not in the '50s-60s-'70s tho, they were OEM-designed engines, commonly OEM built. MoPar Hyper-Paks were built by Chrysler.

mercedes has been eyeballing the bottom-feeder segment for decades. They want to be the German General Motors, but seemingly cannot successfully swing the creation/management of a second brand.