balthazar

For those con-stant-ly moaning GM teases us with "concepts they never build"... here's some horizon-widening. Porsche is not usually my cup of tea, but I've always liked a number of the 911 variants. The concept 'Mission E' was pretty interesting to me also- so low, some pretty interesting rims and nice variant of the production 911. And it worked really sleekly as a 4-dr (unlike the ungainly Panamera). Pretty cool looking. And if anyone could build a concept car 95-99% as shown, it should be Porsche. But nope. What the hell??? The Cacophony of Screams over the Buick regal-esque "cladding"/flares is going to break eardrums. How {sputter} how did this happen? Where are the suicide doors? The wild rims? The ground-hugging stance? The BODY COLORED FENDER FLARES??? ARE THEY JUST COPYING GM HERE??

I had a hunch when the complaint was 'plastic seat backs' that the Genesis ALSO had plastic seats backs. Gee; how'd I know?

What's this material ????

I keep a same year penny in my older vehicles. Made this '40' piece out of a piece of brass plumbing pipe, since then I crimped over the edge and it hangs from a small spring on the '40's key. The penny would ride in the ash tray, but the '40 don't have one. Maybe I'll epoxy the penny to the backside of the medallion.

Yes; because every auto brand has always hit home runs except GM, correct? I haven't seen a G3 in a long time, but I do still see GTOs & G8s, and they are always pristine. I think this qualifies nicely as 'excitement' (something hyundai has never achieved) ~

I seldom like modern car's wheels, but I do like these a bunch. On the other hand, except for the Edsel-esque grille opening, the entire exterior is about an anonymous as they come. In profile or from the rear, it could be ANYTHING. Interior also feels dated to me.

^ And before that it belonged to Pontiac.

This is a fantasy scenario. What recent Cadillac had a "complete trash interior"??

This is a perfect example- I assume this g70 is all new or something. You'll not read a whisper about 'very low/ dangerously poor' sales performance. Because it's not GM.

"Market dud"?? Genesis sold just 372 vehicles total (3 different models) in October this year. Their issue, I believe, starts with the fact that the cars just don't look expensive in person, plus there's the baggage of being a hyundai on top of that. It has no proprietary design. Just looked at the B&P for the g70. The base car really doesn't give you anything; you basically have to go with the 'elite', which bumps the car to $41K. And the color pallet is utterly bland; only a black interior is available with no contrasting colors. The rebranded lined came out 10 years ago now- they're just not moving the needle. And that doesn't necessarily mean the cars are bad (I don't know either way), but they're unilaterally unwanted. If it's 'hard to find a test driver' it's more likely hyundai just doesn't bother to build many.

Working like a dog on a month-long condo rehab, will be wrapped up end of this week. No work on the B-59 since cutting the header into pieces, but taking next week off. Of course, the high temps next week are in the mid 30s. Of course. Did find some verified engine-related weights, so I was able to update the B-59s weight loss log. To date, I've reduced the car's weight by 401 lbs. There will be a multitude of things that change this number, but at this point they are unknowns, weight-wise. But as is right now, car 'weighs' 4080 lbs. That's not bad for a 217-in car with less than 15 lbs of plastic in it.

Followed (4-5 cars behind) a '66-67 Riviera for a few miles before I lost it. Scuffed up/multi-colored paint, collector plates ('QQ' in NJ).

Wut? What am I buying now? ? A Charger? For me or for dave? dave- despite the season, yer not getting a Charger from me. Sorry buddy.

Packard Proving Grounds, founded in 1927. Then & now :: note the dual driveway entering at 3:00 in the aerial shot. The remaining parcel, gateway, dual drives & a 458-ft section of the original test track are what remains, now a designated historical site and open for a variety of functions ~

IF you want to believe the President has any DIRECT effect on the market, you'd legitimately have to go back to Nov 8, not Jan 20. Altho I understand the indirect effects, saying the President sets stock market performance is as legitimate as saying he sets the price of gas. It's consumer & investor actions, not the White House. At EoD Nov 7, the Dow was at 17,888. That was the 9th session of straight losses, the first time it had hit that mark since 1980.

You always have an idea: you're right there- Haggerty insurance valuation tool says $101K. - - - - -

Take a lookie-loo at this old '70 Plymouth. You guys know the model. It's straight, no visible missing parts or rot; a solid car. Let's assume it's likewise complete underhood (let's say it has a 440 6-pack) & inside. With that assumption, this would probably be termed a '#4 condition' car. Without googling it, what's your guess on it's value as it appears in the pic?

True, but seldom financially sensible. And there are 10s of thousands of '60s Mustangs out there; when I go to a general car show, I'm sick of Camaros & Mustangs.

But my point was in 1993 lots of rebuildable cores existed. Not so much now. Also...if you were 30 in 1966 and bought a new Mustang...you would be 82 now. Not exactly prime age for rolling around on a garage floor underneath a rusty relic. I get you RE available cores- there are less builders out there vs. '93, but there are also MORE restored/hot rodded Mustangs to choose from. Aviar isn't marketing a roller project car, but one already done. That pool is exponentially larger. Consider a vehicle like the Aviar as like an audi R8- extremely small sales. It (if it were actually brought to market) would be extremely limited production. Look how long the avanti continued after '64- decades. The tipping point will be what it always is- price. This tho: >>"if you were 30 in 1966 and bought a new Mustang...you would be 82 now<< I believe is misguided. Vintage Mustangs aren't cool because the original buyers remember them, but because of their appeal as a sporty icon. All 3 of my vintage rides rolled off the assembly line before I did. My brother's 3 vintage cars are all also older than he is. My buddy has 2 '67s because he was born in '67, but all his other keepers are older than him. I believe / have observed that the 'original buyer/direct remembrance' hobbyist is a very small percentage of vintage car owners. In other words; 82 yr old owners aren't pushing '66 Shelby Mustangs to $250,000 sale prices.

I don't think that's remotely the case. 1000s & 1000s of Mustangs have been restored/revived since 1993 (Ford built 500,000+ in 1966 alone) , and the Dynacorn body is fairly recent. Number of cars is probably fairly constant in current years - so until values start dropping, there's unlikely to be a corresponding drop in interest. What's not an awesome option is the buy-in price.... but assuredly there was enough demand to validate the R&D to bring the Dynacorn to market in the first place.

RE: the Dynacorn shells - read this elsewhere & found it very much along the lines of what I posted above : "'ve had several vehicles with Dynacorn bodies (a '67 Mustang and a Bronco) and the quality was quite good. The guys who built them said that it was nice having all virgin sheetmetal to work with and that for the most part, the quality was good. Their biggest complaints were that sometimes OEM or repro parts from other manufacturers don't fit very well--it seems that Dynacorn uses Dynacorn parts for their tooling so your NOS fenders or hood might not fit without some tweaking on the reproduction body. The second thing--and they ALL griped about this--was that they had no idea how many little parts they would need to buy to make it complete. When you start with a complete car, you have all the little clips and fasteners and tacking strips and what-not that you will need to put it back together. When you start with a bare shell, you get none of that, so not only do you have to track all that down, you don't have a guide to even tell you what you need. An assembly manual can be invaluable in this regard, but they still said that they spent more time and money than expected tracking down all that little stuff that they needed and it added up to a substantial chunk of change that they didn't expect to spend. Even if you're not going 100% stock, you'll still need a lot of those little parts, which definitely add up. The guy who did the Bronco said he'd probably just use a factory truck in the future, no matter how rusty, just because he can fix the rust for less than it cost to buy all that stuff that he would have gotten with a complete vehicle."

Well, no. Dow was right about 17,500 when Trump was elected, so it's still up 4000 pts from then. Beyond that, the S&P was up 19.4% last year alone, so the bump is even greater if you're in it for the long term. This is not to dismiss the 5000 pt drop from the peak tho. - - - - -

^ Right? OEMs are killing their bottom line with unique EV models. It's a powertrain; ideologically just like a 4-cyl or V6 (I realize the packaging is totally different). The first OEM to develop the unilateral body architecture, they're going to have a real leg up on the competition, balance sheet wise.