balthazar

I may not have been 'looking for that', but a correct answer is a correct answer- multiple people just will have to split the prize money.

Well, with me; you've got to assume there's a vintage angle; yes. Frankly, I am unaware of the above vehicle...

ocnblu is correct on #1 and #2. Just spotted the Kia the other day and it struck me. I like little details like that, esp when it's unique. And thank you for knowing #2.

My apologies, Mr Bill; indeed you were first with that correct answer.

Ford proposed an Aurora wagon concept in '63 using a nose inspired by the 2nd Mustang concept car. We're still not going to swap around other Division names to Cadillac.

1.) Most windshields are basically “parallelograms”, IE; though there is often a minor arc to a given side, they still present themselves as ‘rectangular’ to the eye. This is the 1954 Kaiser, which shows the feature Kaiser used since 1950; nicknamed the ‘Sweetheart’ windshield. Note the obvious double-arc’d top edge of the glass. For the sake of this question, we’re calling it a ‘non-parallelogram’. Is there a more recent vehicle with a similar “non-parallelogram’ windshield? If so; name it. 2.) How is it factually possible that Chevrolet did NOT have a small block V8 in 1955 in the U.S.? 3.) Which GM Divisions built both small block and big block V8s in the 1960s? 4.) First post-war U.S. make/model to feature a speedometer marked higher than 120 MPH. 5.) 'Body by Fisher' and 'Body by Fleetwood' were two common badges found on certain GM cars. There was a third 'Body by —' tag found for many years on GM vehicles- what did it read? View full article

Here's the 2 dismounted tires, one obviously cleaned and the other 'as-bought': Started my aforementioned 'experiment' RE said tire… so far it's not going as well as I had hoped; waiting until morning to see if any difference is noted. I will say this; even tho they are akin to Load Range E and 10-ply nylon carcasses, the dry rot is not necessarily…. reassuring. Still unable to date these via the sidewalls OR vintage ads, but I suspect they are from the late 1960s. I did order 2 new tubes today. Also finished reassembly of my rebuilt carb, a Ford '91/94' 2-bbl : Won't have any idea if it's going to be cool about things, or randomly leak gas all over from numerous fissures… until I run it. Also greased one inner bearing & set it & it's grease seal in one rear drum.

Here's the remaining 2 questions & their answers: 3.) Name two non-American brands to use Ford V8s and two non-American brands to use Chrysler V8s. Sunbeam Tiger & DeTomaso Mangusta are 2 Euro brand make/models that ran Ford V8s. These 2 were mentioned above. Facel Vega and the Jensen Interceptor (2nd gen) were 2 Euro brands to run Chrysler V8s. William got these correct. 4.) How much wider was Pontiac's first year 'Wide Tracks' than it's GM siblings? The first year for Pontiac's Wide Track (as correctly stated above) was 1959. That year, here are the track measurements for the GM Divisions: Chevy : 60" / 60" Olds : 61" / 61" Cadillac : 61" / 61" Buick : 63" / 60" Pontiac : 63" / 64" Obviously, it was a factual claim and not merely advertising fluff. Unfortunately, after roughly 1968, finding either these specs in factory brochures OR magazine road tests of full-size American models is like hen's teeth. I am almost quite certain that Pontiac retained a circa 63/64 track into the early '70s, but I cannot verify where the other Divisions's F/S cars were.

That's pretty sharp within this modern segment, I have no idea what some are saying WRT the ATS being 'too bland' or whatnot. I DO think it should have the lower vertical light pipes the non-V ATS has...

55 Chevy 210 2-dr sedan, red, 'roiled & rollin.

That's just stupid/crazy.

Every single OEM "hand built" car I've seen is still better constructed than the G- it's an anachronistic embarrassment. 1960s VW-level construction is NOT a luxury hallmark, and everything else MB builds, including the rolling chicken coupe the sprinter is, is better built. Hell, my 1940 Ford shows better body/hardware construction than the G. If Cadillac built something on this level, it would be from the 1930s.

Hot water/Dawn/HD scrub brush really cleaned up tire #1 this afternoon. If you look at the pic in post #1, they've always had this fine silt stain on just about all of them, plus they just looked dingy. I'm happy to see them clean up a bit. Physically they are in excellent shape including like no tread wear, PLUS they all match size/brand…. only detraction is fine 'dry rot' cracking. I've looked into 'care' for older tires & I have a procedure I'm going to try out. The 10-ply construction makes for a sidewall that feels like an inch thick (I will try and measure it) and none of the cracks are deep at all. Going to place my order for 2 new tubes and put those on the front, where what must be 90% of the weight. The bare chassis + bare frame rails out back + dually tires there would have almost no stress on them at all. All 6 hold air fine. Post-'procedure' pic to come... Started wrapping my brain around the wiring situation- I've yet to wire a vehicle. This one has to be about the best possible volunteer to learn on; there are TWO fuses in the fuse block. Wiring is the last untapped frontier on this truck, all other systems are finished or mostly so.

Correct DD - the G has been allowed to wither to a dried husk, still featuring 1960s body hardware & construction techniques, tho not at all at the quality level of a 1960s Chevy II, for example. The vehicle has been a long-running joke. Nope; I don't care that a handful of people spend (whatever they do) on it, doesn't change what it is; out of character with MBUSA's catalog, out of step with modern vehicle construction and the oldest continually-unchanged vehicle on the market.

^ Understood & acknowledged. Please allow me to respond ---> 1960s vs. 1990s. Aaaaaand; case closed.

I am shocked.. SHOCKED I say, at this answer.

^ MKR concept was the pinnacle of a Lincoln design/package/image, IMO, in the brand's entire history. That car, built as it was, would have been a giant killer.

What "didn't work" ?? If you -yet again- bleating on about sales volume, again I state; no one cares outside of corporate accountants. It's not an issue for enthusiasts. In fact, the most sought-after & valuable vehicles of the past are almost always the rarest. With mercedes heading up an article I just saw on the worst- depreciating vehicles you can buy, having toyota-level sales volume is a detriment, not an asset.

ocnblu :: correct on #1. Engineered by Porsche, reputedly 'mid-engined', reputedly came very close to becoming the Beetle replacement until it was squashed & all records/ prototypes were destroyed by VW. DD :: Correct on #2. There were numerous, self-propelled, 4-wheel vehicles built before 1886. Here's one, still in existence, the 1868 Hill automobile : Unfortunately for anyone with an active brainstem, popular slop internet 'fact' is commonly stating that Benz "invented" the automobile. Patently false. HoLottaBuicks :: Correct on #5, and HoLottaThanks! - - - - - Going to let the discussion simmer longer on #3 & #4...

1.) What's the deal with this vehicle on the right? 2.) True or false; Benz invented the automobile. 3.) Name two non-American brands to use Ford V8s and two non-American brands to use Chrysler V8s. 4.) How much wider was Pontiac's first year 'Wide Tracks' than it's GM siblings? 5.) Last one is a trick question, because I don't know the answer. Maybe one of you does. What year/make/model is this emblem off of? View full article

Bicycle. Supposedly no motored conveyance allowed, at least motorcycles. Too crowded for them, anyway. Cort- I have no pics of the '77, IMO they're too ugly for digitalization. EDIT :: Ah God; here it is : http://cnj.craigslist.org/cto/4988486679.html

^ That's exactly what GMC & Electromotive did, mid 20th century.

Nobody cares how many sold except MB accountants, and who wants to park next to yourself at Walmart anyway? Problem with the s-class hybrid is it's incredibly heavy. Edmunds isn't yet listing an s-class hybrid as being available, but the S470 weighs 4630 lbs. so of course it needs more HP to account for the bloat. Let's see how the road tests shake out. Your point hinges completely on the smallest motor the CT6 is yet known to offer. In other words, there is no point yet.