balthazar

They made 58,000 El Caminos for '79. While this individual's treatment of his particular car may well have been unique, 58,000 units is no one's idea of a "rare" car.

This is not working for me, regardless that 'exotics' aren't my cup of mango juice. RE the aerial view: I love the concept of what they were going for, but in profile the whole '1 car driving out of another' is so disharmonious... I want to love the exhaust on the same level as the tails, but something is just not there. Perhaps if the tips were highlighted somehow, such as a subtle red to echo the tails... Leaves me flat. Ford had SO much 'iconic moxie' with the '05-06 GT, and it's all gone here.

So should mercedes "give up" on super high end option trims because "no one buys them"?? Maybach is saddled with the stink of recent failure, I don't see it being a draw of any measurable means. Bringing it back into the 'MB' brand allows MB to hide whatever dismal take rates it manages, and cutting it's price in HALF at least gives it a fighting chance. I just hope MB isn't looking to previous well-heeled maybach buyers to forget the 3rd degree burning they took in hindsight. Mercedes should "give up" on a 'Maybach'. Again. Fact remains; these other models in the same price tier are there because some consumers obviously don't gravitate to the 'Hello Kitty' of luxury sedans.

The 455 block IS back, just not thru Buick nor remotely cheap. Got a hankering for an easy 1000 HP? - - - - - I take issue with the Blackhawk being called a 'concept'. 'Custom' or whatever is fine, but this is neither an OEM stylistic trial balloon or future intended production vehicle.

If NOTHING "competed" with the S-class, there would be no A8, no 750i, no Quatroporte, no XJ... and no other sedan in the general price range. Yet, there are.

There is prolly, somewhere, a 'price adjusted' metric that would show sales are UP xx%. - - - - - People need to get it thru their heads that this is not GM of 1979 and Cadillac is not looking to build 300,000+ units/year anymore. In the old days, that was the driving factor with all the factories and dealers GM had, and the uncompetitive product the Germans were fielding. This is a different era with different goals.

Never took to coffee. Don't like hot tea, except for Chinese tea. Ice tea is my bane, however. And semi-regular small Red Bulls.

The benchmark for weight watching over decades of time is the Corvette. Base coupe was 3223 lbs in 1990, its 3298 25 years later. Just about everything is too heavy, and with more lightweight materials than ever previously. But in absolute numbers, the 2700-3500 lb cars above would not be on my list. The luxury sedans are obscenely obese, however. The days of light weights like years ago are long gone with no path back. My '64 Catalina (iron block/heads, perimeter frame, less than 10 lbs plastic) was 213" long x 79" wide and weighed 3770 (shipping weight). That number is 'right on' for the vehicle & period. My '59 Buick is heavier primarily due to a stronger frame, it's 217" long x 81 wide and weighs 4275 (shipping) and 4445 stock (very few options), at the curb. That's on the heavy side for the vehicle/period, outside of Cadillac/ Lincoln/ Imperial.

In last week's Trivia Tuesday, we learned some interesting facts about the evolution of the Buick Riviera. The Riviera has an encore in this week's quiz. Can you answer the following trivia? The answers to last weeks Trivia Tuesday are below. 1.) What do the letters IROC stand for? 2.) What was the last year / make of a U.S.-built four-door convertible in regular production? 3.) The Edsel brand is often known as being a marketing failure, yet 3 of it's model names went on to be used by other brands. Name them. 4.) 1999 was the last model year for the Buick Riviera. When did that nameplate first appear at Buick, and what did it denote? 5.) On what make & model car was the "Eliminator" package available? 6.) The owner of the car pictured below customized his ride to commemorate what successful retail product that he developed? Answers to Trivia Tuesday January 20th, 2015 1.) Nervous Norvus (1956) 2.) Rickenbacker (1922-1927) 3.) Golden Commando (350) 4.) Triumph (1902-1984) 5.) Riviera 6.) LaSalle View full article

That's certainly nothing new.

gotcha. Either way, an affordable model is critical for revenue. Hope there's a decent profit in the car @ $35K...

I did; I meant the upcoming $35K car. I don't pay much attention to the company's news (tho I see a ton of Model S's around, nearly daily). It's going to be called the 'Model 3'???? For Pete's sake.

Tesla does seem to be overvalued. They've lost money every year: $56M in '09 $154M in '10 $254M in '11 $396M in '12 $74M in '13 and $187M thru Q3 in '14 Stock is down from it's high of 291/share to 205 today. Clearly, investors are extending great future confidence in the company, and that's not necc. misplaced IMO, but the future market share is unknown and the losses are piling up high. Stock IPO'd at $19, didn't hit $50 until April of '13, no doubt based primarily on greatly LESSER losses at that point (but still no profit). IMO, the entire future of the company is riding on the upcoming Model X. The current business case is not sustainable long-term. This is a new niche WRT investor patience and they have a seemingly very nice product. Very high risk from the stock standpoint, IMO.

Silver Arrow I was 'freshened up' over it's active time, basically twice (tho there were a few other minor changes). I prefer the initial version; blackwalls & wires, and the egg crate grile : The WWWs actually 'push it back' in time a bit. Narrow WWs were already coming into vogue with the '57 Eldorado Brougham.

Back to the bonus question though… chronologically it goes : 1. LaSalle proposal 2. production Riviera 3. Silver Arrow I concept There is an excellent overview of the Riv's development here. - - - - - The Silver Arrow II is quite undocumented; it was built in '68, was never shown publicly, and no definitive photos of it have been released. I've seen one that reported was labeled 'Silver Arrow II' but it looks exactly like a production '70 Riv. The other two are in fine shape today

^ The Google car has a top speed of 25 MPH. That to me doesn't sound like 'amazing technology' but just enough crash resistance to avoid fatalities. Bring out a affordable 'selfie' car that matches at least all road performance capabilities (IE: highway speeds / 60 MPH), and you're 75% of the way to mass acceptance.

Hyper's answers for questions 1-5 in post #2 are correct. Technically, the answer to #1 is Nervous Norvus, but the judges have deemed it 'close enough'. - - - - - With regards to the bonus question... The Silver Arrow I was built off a production line example of a '63 Riviera. In other words, it came out after the production '63 Riv did, not before. Pretty unusual in that regard. The 'concept that became the Riviera' was originally dubbed 'LaSalle'. It was badged that way in the original Ned Nickles sketch, and in the fiberglas concept that was 98% the production car. Here's those 2 designs, you can just make out the nameplates :

No; 'Riviera' was fine. In the bonus answer tho, I count 3 different vehicle mentions.

^ Across the board Dave; offer 'em on Crew cabs, too.

I like the GMC treatment better : but seems to only be available on the double cab. I don't understand limiting an appearance package by body style in trucks- makes NO sense.

DD: I'm focusing on the specific here; how the Corp. and the Divisions are referred to in media. 'Back in the day" (I have tens of thousands of vintage articles/ads/publications/etc), that NEVER happened. The media default to 'GM" started to occur in the 1980s. Within GM, this was on the heels of a major internal Divisional reorganization and the discontinuance of Divisional engineering & proprietary power trains, further reducing the perceptional autonomy of the marques. More generally, Corporate-level news was prevalent and the auto industry was in the opening salvo of the Great Homogenization. Witness an unexpected backhand from media that had tongues wagging, fingers pointing and the board room buzzing (published in 1983) : - - - - - It's only been in the last 5 years or so where I have been reading a return to acknowledging the Divisions as have ANY autonomy into what they do. It's refreshing, it's a return to a hallmark of Better Days, and it's about time. Now about those Engineering Departments….

^ I would agree with that; there are tangental benefits that do not show up on the ledger. At the same time, like every single Gov't program out there, there is waste and abuse that needs to be addressed on the allocation side. There IS a middle ground goal to reach for. I also like the idea of street cars, DD. Steel wheels; let 'em roll.

Undoubtedly the State of PT is a cog, but my question is; to what degree does the U.S. culture/custom play? IE: we have been a 'nation on wheels' for a century, which is counter to other countries. Plunk down a 'dense' PT system in a random city and how many people will jettison their vehicles?

There are no "OR"s in trivia, Hypes.