balthazar

Here's the copy : >>"Let’s do a straight comparison with the production version, line by line, inch by inch. Well, look at that. DIsappointingly stock, isn’t it? It’s clearly not a scale model in any sense..."<< and here's the pic : The article claims the body was stock, except it was moved forward on the chassis a few inches. The pic has the bodies aligned, and we can see that the axle lines are shifted forward on #13. But look closer; the door handles, the side glass seam and the top of the vent window are NOT aligned. I would initially attribute this to differences in distance & camera angle/distortion, but I dunno here... The article crows victory in disproving the "7/8th" claim (and the 15/16th claim), when clearly that was hyperbole. The car was NOT stock in many ways beyond those allowed, Smokey was tops in rule book interpretation, and THAT is the myth- just what were all the things done to the car, not the singular 'smaller body' aspect. You didn't need an inch at 200 MPH when an eighth of an inch made a notable difference.

>>"Mercedes-Benz says modifications could be made to... the drive wheels for different racing regulations."<< FWD racing regulations??? LMAO

^ I'm old school WRT names, but even I don't at all care for that suggestion. 'Series C-V3.6' is just as 'bad' as 'CTS' (or not, if you simply accept that as a name. Really no different than -say- 'Barracuda', which doesn't have any more association with that car parked over there, either). BTW, even if it was a pre-schoolistic as "1-, 2-, 3-, 4-series", there will ALWAYS be vocal idiots shouting about how stupid it is/how confused they are (IE; believing that 'CTS' somehow stands for 'Catera Touring Sedan').

Went to an inner-city residential neighborhood- the guy had 2 '81 Z-28s, an '80 Trans Am, '80 Corvette, '70 Chevelle SS, '69 Camaro, FOUR circa '69-70 Nova coupes and a '55 Chevy 150 2-dr sedan... all in his backyard. The entire backyard surface was concrete, and the cars were parked door handle to door handle. I haven't seen that many circa '70 Novas together in a long while.

mmMMmm; '67 2+2 428...

Buick did some nice touches on these, but the basic body shell I've always shuddered at. Agree with Moltar; haven't seen one in a good 10 years.

my buddy bought a roller '69 Camaro race car, FG nose, roll cage, '57 BOP front-loader rear with 5.13 gears, real decent body except a ragged trunk pan. Gonna clean it up & flip it as is. Also looked at a '65 GTO hardtop today, 4bbl/auto, but it was a bondo buggy and we passed. Looked very good at 10-ft tho.

But you see my point, right? People who have never owned GM OR another domestic are the last group you go after, not the first.

Again- this is worrying about the 'less forgiving, anti-GM' crowd. You will never remove all confusion out there & it's pointless to try. We already have numerous models of many makes who misrepresent engine displacement in model names (BMW for one)- there's certainly confusion there for some... whereas for most others- they don't give a damn. It's not a problem if a handful of folk are confused- the V-Sports aren't even out yet- either they'll learn something new or they won't care. This is a manufactured non-problem. It's like all the base MBs and BMWs running around with glued-on AMG/M badges- you don't think that confuses consumers? This is greatly over-emphasized and represents a minimal percent of consumers. The VAST quantity of consumers fit into a VAST pool south of that extreme, those who HAVE owned Domestic and/or who have owned GM in the past. Don't forget the ABA is around 50 yrs old. GM has what- 17% of the U.S. market, and the domestic share is around 55%, IIRC. That's 38% of the consumer pool to go after, and this doesn't count those who owned domestic in the past (only raising that figure). Why chase what might be 15% of the market when you can chase the other 65% (100%—the 17% you already have—the 15% anti-domestics)?? This is the next step to go after, because chasing 15% of the buyer pie, who have no interest in Domestics, is futile in the short run and damaging in the long run. maybach failed due to poorly-executed product. Of the 3 modern Duesenberg revival attempts, none of them achieved production (and the 1st never achieved steel), so it's not legitimate to judge them. Starting ANY new enterprise up is extremely cost-prohibitive, and something on the level of Duesey/maybach even more so.

This is why a manufacturer cannot worry/waste time over 'less forgiving, anti-Company' consumers. This is why if having a CTS-V and a CTS V-sport, properly defined vs the basic CTS, is NOT an issue. There's more than enough going on without manufacturing false problems. This is also why, in a industry overflowing with meaningless numeric names, that names with meaning & image should be on the table for future product, esp where image/perception becomes a larger component than normal for a model. Look at Rolls- the name was heavily tarnished in the '80s with ancient vehicles no where near the leading edge of their sector, yet reworking product to a much higher standard restored that name. The same can be done with many many heritage names. Just because mercedes failed miserably when they bought the rights to 'maybach' and couldn't make it work (poor product), doesn't mean every other instance of using a heritage name will follow the same path. In other words, "LTS" or "ZTS" is immeasurably wretched.

Can't get every consumer and never will. A company can spiral around trying to and lose sight of the big picture in the meanwhile. The 'not as forgiving' consumers will find another nit to pick, regardless of how 99% perfect a car may otherwise be.

^ '68 Imperial convertible; one of 474 units. I prefer the '67 nose, but the rears on these 2 years is pretty nice.

If a sub-SRX crossover is coming from Cadillac, I hope to hell it isn't as staggeringly cheap as the bmw X3 I was checking out today, because if it's as little as twice as good, I'd rather they skip that segment entirely.

I'd say it's high in that condition. 1st gen Rivs have strong cross-over appeal among enthusiast groups, but I'd rather this be a GS/425 car and I'd rather it was all together. I think $3K is more realistic (assumes the lack of rust scenario is accurately described).

They're that much and more, depending on originality/quality : http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/?q=1969+GTO+Judge&search_context=%2Fclassifieds%2Fcarsforsale%2F I missed the chance to buy a factory black '69 Judge about 9 yrs ago- still kicking myself as it was a F'ing steal then @ $2K.

There's no 'Plymouth' heritage forum, so this gets planted here. Pretty nice job, IMO!

That's OK; I've seen non-BMW fans who think "1" means it's the best, highest-priced bmw, because its, you know; number 1. Wait 'til they learn the 2-dr 3-series was canceled.

Oh, come ON! Yet another set of angled, lower 'air intakes'? This trend is already as stale as fender doo-dads.

Not so sure about the 2nd gen air extractors....

I love how anonymous, everyday, ordinary people all think they have "legacies" now. >>"Today when your handyman fixes something, he usually has to order a spare part from China. One day, he might print it right in your yard. Say you need to replace the pipe under your sink. Why wait for the whole thing to come in from out of the country, when it can be done there and then?"<< Who orders an under-sink pipe from overseas???? Complete fail of an example.

Jag survived being without their V12, they can survive no V8. So few buy Jaguars of any cylinder count, the needle will hardly blip.

Uh-oh : >>"Always able to find itself at the center of controversy, Tesla’s latest PR stunt has earned it a slap on the wrist by a Federal safety agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released a statement in rebuttal to Tesla‘s claim that the Model S is the safest car ever and that it earned a, “new combined record of 5.4 stars” according to a Tesla release. “The agency’s 5-Star Safety Ratings program is designed to provide consumers with information about the crash protection and rollover safety of new vehicles beyond what is required by Federal standards,” says the NHTSA release. “One star is the lowest rating; five stars is the highest. More stars equal safer cars.” The statement goes on to comment that the agency, “does not rate vehicles beyond 5 stars and does not rank or order vehicles within the star rating categories.” That said, a 5-star rating for the Tesla Model S is equal to any other car with a rating of 5-stars, with another example being the Volvo S60. In addition, the agency chides Tesla’s overzealous claims, commenting that it, “has guidelines in place for automakers and advertising agencies to follow, helping ensure that accurate information is portrayed to the public.” Did Tesla follow those guidelines? It’s likely the electric automaker, its eccentric CEO, Elon Musk, and its clever PR department will find a way to chime-in."<< Crap like this is a black eye to credibility. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

'76 (circa) Monte Carlo, double white, excellent cond, having a drink at the pumps '67 Chevelle convert, black over red, excellent shape, rolling.

If you look @ their site, they show a singular route across the county by then, but what if that's not your desired route? But corporate promises are only 2 clicks better than political ones- only time will tell.

206" is short. I'm looking forward to piloting 217" again (tho this is down from daily drivers at 221" and 237").