balthazar
In Hibernation
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by balthazar
-
My buddy worked like 9 hours on the truck today; I was in & out. PRIOR to today, he re-installed the generator & speedo & hooked everything up. Fuel & oil pressure gauges weren't working: took out cluster, took out gauges, swapped in originals after verifying they worked with power. Hooked all back up & started truck- oil gauge went to about 45 (cold), then slowly settled toward 25-ish. Truck only ran about 3-4 mins. FoMoCo stated '35 lbs @ 35 MPH' as a guide. Apparently Ford flatheads can run on any viscosity oil (I currently have straight 30 weight in it). Fuel gauge wavers quite a bit, but it moves. Via visual inspection (had tank sender off) it had 40% of a tank... but gauge never showed above 1/4 tank. Will monitor. No squealing from anything- probably not enough run time. Didn't move truck so didn't check speedo. - - - - - Bought this trumpet horn at an estate sale this past weekend for $6. Installed but still working out the wiring to get it working in concert with the original (original has 2 terminals, horn button grounds it- trumpet only has 1 terminal).
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and surmise you have no IDEA how shatteringly ironic your statement is.
-
Hypothetically speaking ~ wondering if last month's Cadillac model sales numbers will influence Cadillac to veer off any pursuit of vehicles smaller than the ATS and return to larger cars. Yeah; not expecting such, but here's to hoping; modern "full size" vehicles are severely misnomered.
-
That Scout is adorable. Book says it is visually indistinguishable from '61 thru '64; it's one of those years. Wikipedia says it came out in "1960", but I rate the Standard Catalog of American Light Duty Trucks higher. Non-automotive sites frequently get confused with the calendar vs. model year thing. Some specs: weight: 2800 lbs, 4-cyl, 152 CI, 93 HP/135 TRQ. IH didn't break down production by model, but built 142K total IH's in the '61 calendar year.
-
They can't 'take over then make people forget'- they have to 'make people forget, then take over'.
-
RE: the CLA- I'm actually surprised it's DOWN 43% on the year. If you're going to make an obvious money grab off of your own image, at least get the car right!! Kind of still shocked they went FWD on it; it's the same length as the ATS but it has NINE inches LESS legroom!
-
An 8-series will just be a more expensive/poorer value 6-series, which was just axed because "no one bought one". It's a predestined flop. BMW has watched it's cars volume fall for the better part of 2 years now, they couldn't find whatever "magic" their fan base thinks they had with GPS.
-
^ See the post 2 above yours. Cadillac was not building even mid-sized cars ("full-size" in today's parlance) in the '60s & '70s until the '76 Seville (204"). Hell, look up GM's small cars in the '70s and find something you think would have made good bones even against the dregs the Euros were building. That's not 'behind the curve', it's just the way the brand was. Look at Mercedes- it took them 35 years to get a competitive large car going in this country. "Behind the curve" there?
-
^ Yeah, I don't think that's remotely the case. IE; 'tossable driving' is still at it's peak AFA product offerings go. What's 'again waking up' is straight line performance (tho there's basically nothing available that is that singular in ability- Demon aside).
-
Possibly, but they were never released EVER, even when GM was pulling down 50% plus of the market and EVERY Division was making money hand over fist. So your implied theory that GM today is "protecting" Cadillac because they "make no money" doesn't hold water, does it?
-
Pavlov & classical conditioning. It's how OEMs sell brand new vehicles.... and every fraction of a terrible investment they are. HP is no different- create the desire, feed the addiction. There's also a strong element of diminishing returns. Envy the Chrysler consumer of the 1950s :: '50: 135 HP, '60: 400 HP. Contrast that to more modern times ala the Corvette :: '75: 165 HP, '17: 650... but that spans 42 years.
-
Audi did $3B in 'operating profit' in 2016 on 1.9 million vehicles. That's only $1578 profit per vehicle by the math. Hard to believe on numerous levels, but 720K of their volume was the entry level A3 & A4s, and the A8 is down to 200 units/month (in the U.S.). We don't know what the operating profit portion of GM's $9B profit is attributable to Cadillac on 277K vehicles.
-
• Why do some other luxury brands have "thin" line-ups? Do you believe every brand wishes/wants to have 65 models?? • "without that profit" - who in an official capacity has even hinted there is no profit?? Cadillac is likely the spearhead of profit at General Motors- who made $9.6B last year. Aren't you going to admit Cadillac is (apparently) hugely profitable? • "autonomous cars" - please! • "FCA" - tho they only made a piddling $100M profit in 2015, 2016 profit was $1.8B- that's a huge jump back from the brink. No doubt Jeep & Ram are a huge shot in the arm. They also have Maserati as a high margin luxury brand, tho I never see it pushed marketing-wise (I do see their cars regularly on the road tho). You've also blathered on about Alfa offering the 505HP SUV, assumedly you feel that's a major piece. The problem @ FCA catalog-wise is Fiat/Alfa, who have poor global perceptions, and Chrysler, which is being vastly under-utlized. Then there's Sergio....
-
You seem to be perpetually under the impression that Cadillac exists to serve YOUR WHIMS. Would it shock you to learn they do not? Cadillac CHOSE not to build another factory, in that the growth was steady enough, they enlarged over time to accommodate, and obviously they did that. But their '70s volume was really too high, traditionally. But what would you rather drive; a lexus or a Maserati??Allow me to contrast your above statement Sal ~ • What I'm saying is people thought BMW was going to be Germany's version of Cadillac but Mercedes took over that mission.• Yeah- I don't get it either. - - - - - RE 'drivetrains'- anyone ever, or know anyone who ever went car shopping, stood in front of a potential purchase and asked 'What year did this variant of this engine first start in production? Because I'm hinging my purchase on the answer.' In other words, hella yes the grotesque mugs are a factor.If you were familiar with Cadillac's history, you wouldn't have to ask that question. Cadillac came from -and was for a major swath of their history; a small volume marque. It took the brand just under 50 years to sell their millionth car (1950). Sales grew yearly & steadily : '50: 103K, '55: 140K, '60: 142K, '65: 181K, '70: 238K, '75: 264K. Cadillac had all they could do to keep up with demand. Be aware that there was only a single factory in this era; it wasn't until '71 that a Cadillac was ever built outside the Detroit plant. Also be aware that in this era Cadillac turned down what became the '63 Riviera (pitched intially/internally as the LaSalle II), because they didn't have the capacity for the model. By circa 1970, Cadillac had so many options and trims available, the Division stated it could build a full 3 years of production volume without ever duplicating one of their cars. This all are the main reasons, but Cadillacs were always exported right from the beginning (just in small numbers). As illustrated above, the marque had enjoyed a huge market (for their goals) in their home territory... you know; the same market EVERY OTHER manufacturer eventually tries to get into.Software / technology makes tricks like this SO easy, it's not that different than a :wink: 'servicably' engineered part that is later specifically responsible for a widespread recall. If people didn't widely shun toyota after sub-par engineering begat 25 million vehicles recalled in 10-12 years, I don't see ANY diesel buyers fleeing en-mass for emissions. Trucks are half the U.S. market and the demand there keeps edging up. Diesel cars aren't going anywhere.Cadillac made this in the 1950s and charged $13.8K for it, nearly the exact same price as a Rolls Silver Cloud @ $14.1K (needless to say; the Rolls was a technological and design dinosaur) ~ Another example of Mercedes "chasing" Cadillac.
The 600 wasn't a consumer vehicle, it was a commercial vehicle, just like the Series 75. And Cadillac was building cars like this 20 years earlier than the 600, so I guess mercedes "chased" Cadillac : The regular production mercedes, the ones consumers bought, had hideous interiors, marginal build quality and were never class-leading in amenities. MB didn't even offer factory A/C until 1968 or thereabouts. After briefly offering it in the early 40s, Cadillac made it a permanent offering beginning in 1953. More "chasing" of Cadillac by mercedes. Rolls didn't get A/C until '56. And the problem with 'heads of state' is that office & it's like have long been harbingers of Most Corrupt. IOW; People No One Looks Up To Anymore.
Important Information
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.