balthazar

Not bragging, just stating my scenario. Everyone is different. I naturally wake up after 5-6 hours, I'm not depriving myself. Sometimes I will clock 7-8 hrs, but it's unusual. EDIT: This Saturday morning; set my phone alarm for 6:56AM but woke before it at 6:48. No work, no where to go, just was done sleeping. Went to sleep around 12:30, so that was around 6.25 hrs.

Chevrolet is more than a 1-dimensional brand and has been for half it's existence. IMO, a mid-engined Corvette 'Special' would make an interesting addition to the catalog of models, but it had better not kill off the current configuration.

I'm in the same camp as ocnblu- not seeing a huge or even marked potential of car improvement going to ME. At this point the Corvette enjoys a much more rarified position in the super car arena being FE. And then there's this :

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKRFfqFB1wA/

I detest sleeping. I sleep about 5 hrs on average. Generally wake up @ 6:45 or 7AM (varies depending on what's scheduled). Wish I could narrow that period to more like 3 hrs. No drugs/prescriptions of any sort, maybe have a beer once every 3 months. I do have heavy drinking penciled in on my Future Calendar, but haven't yet worked out that plan's interaction with my plan to work until I'm 80.

With the rebuilt ignition system back on, we hooked up the battery & threw the toggle. Electric fuel pump sounded sickly & fuel filter (inline clear plastic) would not fill up. Pondered & talked over possibilities, then decided to fill the carb manually & press the button. Truck started & ran 2 times, running amazingly quietly & smoothly… until the carb ran empty. It did crank a bit beforehand, but once it caught it hummed nicely at it's circa 400 RPM idle speed. Opened the fuel pump and the plunger seems to have gotten stuck. Fiddleputzed and it worked better, but still not 100%. GOing to research it. I DID get a new filter for it 10 years ago, so I am hopeful. So, SUCCESS… even if tempered by another minor issue to attend to. Truck still has it's mechanical fuel pump in place, just not connected. Opened it up, it's very straightforward and could be rebuilt if we abandon the electric.

The upside is that getting hammered is MUCH cheaper now.

Agreed- BMW pig nostril grilles.

Haven't yet found the 'sweet tweak' on my end yet... - - - - - Just some observations/questions : Why in the above limited viewing area is 'Industry News' repeated 3 times? Why is the thread title repeated twice? Why is the interval since the last post was made shown twice? Why is mention of 'positive reputation' pertinent outside the thread itself? Perhaps this shows up quite differently on phone screens, IDK. Like I stated before (and after this I'll shut up about it); it's visually overly busy.

Oh, no… I don't let folks inside anymore. Afraid I've let things go inside, too, but I've been pretty busy these last…oh, 7 years. - - - - - Just kidding, guys. Here's a real pic of my house (I like black & white photography) :

MB is too bland & soft in the rear, and for the money, looks too similar to the entry-level CLA up front for the money. It's also too pokey 0-60.

My 'problem' is that I only consider sheet metal that projects either up or rearward from the car's body to be fins, and lenses (tail lights) that do so to NOT be. IE: a '59 Cadillac has 2 fins, not 6. So I don't see any sort of fins on any modern vehicles. This is also how the recognized last fins on Cadillacs is 1964- subsequent designs were 'extended edges' as opposed to fins. But I'm a fin purist.

• Agreed on 'past hour' - I don't see any point. • On the far left, we have a word balloon icon, in a circle, connected vertically with a line. Then the white topic box has a pointer pointing at said word balloon circle. Right next to that is a icon version of the O/P's avatar. It's busy, IMO.

Just a lonely, disembodied voice in the cyber wind here... I hate the new format. Just too busy, too many graphics competing with each other. My 2 pennies.

Plainfield, Wisconsin. Been here since my folks brought me & my brother here, I was 8 yrs old. Sometimes I work with the county road crew, but I done odd jobs, helping neighbors out, little bit of this n that, like roofing, grain threshing, things like that. The family's all gone now, it's just me. I've kinda let the homestead go, but it's OK. I get pretty blue at times. This is a pitcher of my place from a few winters ago : I wish folks was nicer to me.

Synopsis to date ~ • I believe by "right era", the reference was to the Ford, not the P-51. • '20 year industry-wide trend' means it started around 1995 or so. It went industry-wide, but today only 1 brand still uses a trace of it. • Hm-mmmmmm……… Nothing bubbling to the surface for me.

I'm going to finish off my tangent to this thread here, and sign out. Cadillac Escala, blahblahblah, it's great. You guys don't mind one more off-topic post, right? Hyper ~ I also do not care to get into a 'pissing match', we already have the newbies carrying on here for that (and over up/down votes, of all the inconsequential things.) I agree to walk away from the El Morocco issue. Perhaps one day we can crack a beer together and trade Pontiac stories. - - - - - Here's an example, so in the future you understand where I am coming from. • 1948 Tucker 48, curb weight : Wikipedia : 4200 lbs Carfolio.com : 4235 lbs conceptcarz.com : 4235 lbs supercars.net : 4200 lbs hagerty.com : 4235 lbs hotrod.com : 4235 lbs thehenryford.org : 4235 lbs (HFM owns # 1016) You can quickly google the above. These are ALL established auto-centric entities (well.. not wikipedia. ) And they're all wrong. Because they really don't CARE all that much. In fact, they are all regurgitating each other's info. Not because I say so -I have no pawn in this game- but because the data says so. I don't need any credit, I just want the damn specifications correct. Update all the major info depositories and I'll slink quietly back to my cabin in the woods. The '48 Tucker is nearly identical in dimension to the '48 Roadmaster. However, the Roadmaster had a cast iron I-8, a cast-iron Dynaflow with 11 quarts of fluid, a steel-encased steel driveshaft (TorqueTube) and a solid rear axle. Roadmaster weight? 4160. So I'm supposed to shut up and accept a 4200 / 4235 weight for a car with an aluminum flat 6, no driveshaft and an independent rear? Why, because numerous sources said so?? Not gonna happen because I KNOW it's wrong. Richard Jones (co-founder of the TACA) got in a mild back-n-forth with me online about this issue (has to be 8 years ago or more; Jones has been dead 4 years). Because I challenged it; said I figured it was closer to 3700. He felt it inconsequential. I wish I could link you to the forum where it played out, but the site is permanently archived/ offline. I pushed a little (some might say 'blowing it out of proportion'), but he admitted I was right, that all the cars weigh around 3600. Then he promptly challenged me to figure out the Tucker engine serial numbering system… you know; something IMPORTANT (I had no data for that, so could not contribute there). Just last week I came across this online, first time I had ever seen the document, and my study of the Tucker goes back 30 years, since corresponding with Alex Tremulis (now dead 25 years). These are supposedly factory specs for the '49 model (attached). That's 2 highly credible sources agreeing with my research and bucking EVERY other source. How about that; the 'published / experts' are all wrong. It happens… and often. 'See something, say something'.

What is a 'Costco home'? That synapsis above is a diametrically opposed description of me. If I could snap my fingers and change my daily driver, I'd get something about 60 yrs old with inescapable patina. And a big block.

I was tooling around the '63 Chrysler Turbine website. Chrysler actually lent out 50 Turbine cars to (IIRC) 203 volunteers, allowing them to drive the car for 90 days… as long as they agreed to keep a log of their usage/impressions. Unprecedented. The site has a list of all the drivers, dates, miles driven, city/state, job, etc. I found this an interesting snapshot of the time period (1964-1966) : 38 yr old pharmaceutical engineer - regular car : 7 yr old Plymouth 38 yr old surgeon - regular car : 5 yr old Chevrolet 45 yr old industrial designer - regular car : 5 yr old Plymouth 55 yr old retired rear admiral - regular car : 13 yr old Dodge 52 yr old surgeon - regular car : 5 yr old VW 38 yr old custom home builder - regular car : 7 yr old Merc 49 yr old VP of plumbing/heating Co - regular car : 3 yr old Plymouth 54 yr old bank president - regular car : 3 yr old Triumph 42 yr old orthaepedic surgeon - regular car : 6 yr old Rambler 44 yr old college professor - regular car : 10 yr old Plymouth 60 yr old foreign trade consultant - regular car : 15 yr old Dodge 34 yr old bank manager - regular car : 6 yr old Dodge 46 yr old high school principal - regular car : 11 yr old Chevrolet 44 yr old missile project manager - regular car : 12 yr old Ford 52 yr old A/C firm president - regular car : 7 yr old T-bird 49 yr old college professor - regular car : 9 yr old DeSoto Surgeons, professors, executives… driving Ramblers & Dodges & Chevys.

Hyper, in all the years we've been on this board, we have SELDOM agreed. It is what it is. But holy hell; the El Morocco ?? Do you know how many El Moroccos were built in TWO years time? 37. How could any of these "accredited" folk, supposedly with a firm grasp on automotive history, possibly make the extrapolation that the 3-dozen independently-manufacturered El Moroccos POSSIBLY have ANY effect on the consumer's mind WRT Chevy aspiring to be Cadillac? 37 cars influencing 1,525,177 car buyers?? The El Morocco had zero publicity, and besides, all it was was a cobbled-together rear-clip copy of the Brougham. Just because it was based on a Chevy doesn't in any way mean the actual production Chevy was a 'junior Cadillac'. The El Morocco was an automotive unicorn, except no school kids ever drew pictures of them.

That fist gen Malibu always looked a little off to my eye. It could be improved greatly IMO if the rear axle was moved forward 3-4 inches or so. '64 Malibu : '64 Tempest :

I dispelled this theory the last time you brought it up. Then, you claimed Chevy pitched it in advertising, but Chevy neither stated or implied anything whatsoever to do with the luxury field or Cadillac. It's a fallacy. "Chrome?" C'mon...

Are there any?

Dave (or anyone) ~ Has anyone any links to .cd relative to vehicle speed? What continues to catch my eye is ".26 cd" and "inner city use". There has to be some sort of chart of speed plotted against .cd and a resulting 'mpg' out there somewhere. A brief wikipedia perusal turned up nada. - - - - - I do think it's an excellent idea to try and electrify large / commercial trucks. Go for it.