balthazar

I like most of that daydream, dfelt, tho 20"s are too large - they diminish the sheer size of the car via throwing off the scale. IMO, 17"s are the limit. You get the scratch together, and I'll get a title for this. Oh, and 389 > 502.

>>"super-guido douched out edition"<< LOL The fiat is just not that compelling a design. Its lumpy. The Mini (tho QUITE tired/stale at this point) is much more so 'hep', but it hasn't reeled in the youth demo either.

^ He has the appearances of being a Pontiac man (owns a '62 LeMans coupe, '67 Cat 4-dr hardtop, plus a '63 LeSabre coupe), but his kneejerk reaction is to slam a Chevy motor in everything, you know; "so you can drive them".

Per SOP regarding my personality, I did not bond to cars I automotively grew up with (80s). I read/learnt about cars and gravitated to those I very infrequently saw, but immensely prefered for a myriad of reasons (mid-50s thru mid-60s), and that gravitation has held ever since. It may be part of why I have difficultly understanding those who look at brand new vehicles (they usually cannot afford), ignore the overflowing cornucopia of older stuff, and forgo cars all together.

Schizophrenically hilarious.

UPDATE: have been shopping parts around, have a guy in Japan on the hook @ $175 for the front bumper, brackets & headlight bezels (plus shipping). Owner pitched the whole car to me today, minus the engine, for $600. I'm thinking @ $500, I'd be in, I should be able to turn $500 profit inside a year without working at it too hard, more over longer time. It would move to my house (free delivery). The motor is worthless anyway; I would only scrap it. There's ONE guy I've found who wants these 265s, but he's in AZ. I realize most of you have no clue what this is worth in parts/demand, but I would welcome another vehicle that would lower my Average Model Year Owned number (currently stands at 1965 IIRC), and would just enjoy having it around for a while. I say 'while', but the '65 Bonne I bought and decided to strip after about a year is still here too, and I bought that one in '99. Neighbors & room are not issues. Opinion?

Black mercedees sedan, prolly from the early-mid 60s, tho stylistically it was from the early 50s.

Not pretty, but in great shape. Nothing here for me, tho it would be fun to stuff the motor in a -say- '63 F-85. No vote.

^ True- I have read countless stories about how an image/ sound/ feel of a performance car got ingrained into the brain of a young observer, insuring a chronic case of Gearheaditis.

Well, no doubt there's SOME cost involved, and GM had HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of past names. That, and GM (and all the other manufacturers) pays very little attention to their pasts. I consider it High Fortune that there's a GM Historical and that all the paper/photo records weren't heaved into a plant furnace decades ago. There was a binder of Motorama car sketches & photos, unique views, tight renderings, found in a dumpster behind the Clark Ave Cadillac plant years ago- how that could have happened defies explanation/theory.

"ZL-1" may never have been trademarked, as it was pretty much an option code, not a model name, IIRC. I would agree that every name EVER used should be retained- doesn't take much effort for a legal entity already set up & doing this sort of thing.

I just see an awful lot of 'cherry picking' WRT these anecdotal stories. Sure, urban-based college kids can get by without a car, but those situations change. I know many college kids think 'now is forever', but at some point -and this is distinct from the aspect of affording one- a personal vehicle will become a want for the VAST majority at some point. Maybe not a passion, but a necessity WRT convenience.

Sweetmercifulcrap- why??? I can heat Camino's 'voice' right now saying 'See how Gov't sucks the joy right out of a situation?' and he'd be dead right. And this is exactly why a 2015 M80 would never come close to 2500 lbs. A mini weighs over 2500 and it's almost 2-ft shorter & FWD.

Well said. I've advocated a 'MinimalistKar' on here before. Not that that is specifically what's targeted here, but the end result is pretty much the same; not EVERYTHING needs 10 airbags, 20 electronic nannies and 30 miles of wiring. IMO, the only real way around this is to UNBUNDLE equipment/ options/ packages, so many models start affordably (& lightweight), and allow those Gen Ys to get in affordably on the ground floor. Make as many of the options 'plug-in' as possible, or at least user-friendly to add on and you start reeling them in again.

Couldn't make anything close to the original nose work, so it leads with it's radiator/ pusher fan. Yep; it's done. Jeers.

Like these on a '31? Pretty neat..they seem to pivot w/ the wheels. Yea- not sure there, I don't get to spend nearly enough time around these grand beauties as I'd like. I've seen some with a hand crank on the mounting bar, but other clearly have linkage going backward... whether that's toward the driver or linked to the steering, I just don't know. Going to have to check this out @ Hershey...

The GP has a set, mounted really low; I find their illumination so close to the car to be rather ineffective- I am just not looking that close to the front of the car when in motion. 'Course- they may well be ineffectively designed. • • • Cadillac began offering 'fog lamps' as early as 1927. Without checking year-for-year, they were Cadillac options continuously into the 1960s... when they were supplemented by cornering lamps in '62. These earliest lamps (in the '20s & '30s) were adjustable, and from the driver's seat in many instances. According to my references, 99% of the time they were clear-lensed, it's rare to see factory Cadillac fogs with yellow lenses. I have 1 pic in my files; a 1941 with yellow lenses (and I believe those were not OEM)- the rest are all clear-lensed. If that reference there more specifically meant 'yellow light' RE the quality of light, then that is in accordance with the auto lighting quality in general in that period- there really was no what we would call today 'white light' lamps then- a byproduct primarily of 6V systems. Not sure one could call them a failure of sorts on that count. The degree the early fogs help or not would be interesting to learn first-hand. The early headlights were HUGE, and the fogs were pretty good size by themselves. They would HAVE to made a notable difference due to the additional illumination area alone, but as to the desired degree in fog, I don't know.

^ Me too- a Greenbriar.

Cheers. Would shake out the mechanicals and drive it as is, with pride. Mor 'classified language' > "mechanized antenna" ????

Looks like the show car was wearing larger rims- mayhaps thats where the 17" figure came from. Doesn't seem to be a leaked brochure online yet (tho perhaps there is and no one really cares... )

Like most all Gov't- approved/created charts, the BMI index is vastly inaccurate.

holycrap- edmunds' specs claim they're 17"s !!! I would've sworn on a stack of vintage Cadillac owner's manuals they were 15"s at the largest (they look like 13"s to me). Proportionally, they should be 20"s, minimum. Also see it measures a full 60" tall. True cars haven't been regularly that tall since the early 1950s. Hudson made a big splash with their Monobilt Unibody chassis for '48, notable for getting down to a 60" overall height. The irony is that mankind in general is growing wider far quicker than they are taller... but the Spark is only 63" wide. The Hudson had a much more accommodating 77" width, and thus; a really nice envelope. What wacked out proportions on the Spark- nearly a square. Harley Earl is spinning near redline. At the rate things are going, basic cars will very soon be taller than they are wide.

such..... tiny...... wheels.....

There are a given handful of people who would call a mercedees a BMW & vice versa- that does not mean that there is a problem to be addressed.