balthazar

>>"People don't want to pay $40k for a fancy Fusion or Accord"<< Really? They pay $40K for a fancy camry all day....

I saw one reference that said these were 30K, but that sounds closer to GVWR or original weight with one of the displays in place, not curb weight. I know their size, and yes; their behemoths, but they're not anywhere near the 'density' of something even from the 1970s. I could see it weighing between 12-15K, but not 30K. Doesn't smell right to me. I'd like to know the fact here. My Ford COE looks like a monstrous truck (it's over 9' tall), but there's nothing to it, very few sub-systems, and it's under 3900. For decades, the weight of a Tucker has been quoted as being 4250, it's in any reference book you pic up with specs listed. That also didn't pass the sniff test, and I challenged that to one of the founders of the Tucker Club, who admitted this was the reported weight of the heavily-leaded prototype, and the production cars weigh about 3850. Made real sense when you considered it was the size of a 4300 lb Roadmaster, but had an AL H6 and no driveshaft vs. a iron I8, iron trans & DS.

I have not spent a great deal of time studying GMCs in particular, but the years in studying American vehicles in general has made me pretty decent at hearing a 'reason behind' story and getting a gut feeling on whether or not it has merit. I have a good handle on the 'whys' of the past. Before I looked up the engine specs, I thought the Pontiac might have 10 HP and 25 TRQ on the Chevy, but seeing identical (advertised) numbers gave me even more ammo to seek a better reason. I wasn't there, I have no insider testimonials, but this one seemed relatively logical. Could still be wrong, but the 'weak Chevy' theory definitely isn't right.

28 MPH inline 6...

Yea- it's getting pretty sickening.

'Chevy engine was thought weak' is interesting : Chevy V8 was 265 CI, as a 4bbl: 180 HP, 260 TRQ. Pontiac V8 was 287 CI, as a 4bbl: 180 HP, 264 TRQ. I believe instead it was the trans, as Chevy was burdened with the Powerglide, while Pontiac got the HydraMatic. Indeed, GMC frequently felt it pertinent to stick a HYDRAMATIC badge on the truck when so equipped in this era (even tho the vast majority of trucks then were sticks). That, and frankly, GMC does better by itself to associate above Chevy, as they did.

I've made much the same argument RE hardtops vs. convertibles & crash standards... I was hissed down.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/09/autos/NHTSA_pagani_huayra/index.htm

Pontiac :: $2105 ~ $2962 Olds :: $2297 ~ $3140 Buick :: $2291 ~ $3552 The central 3 were always tighter-grouped, but the progression is still there for the most part. Note that there is still no Buick/Cadillac overlap.

That's a sexy beast!

A contraction seems inevitable in the New World Economy, and not just at GM. I can get behind such if it's well executed... but I'd not be happy to see Cadillac getting more shared platforms, there I believe -at least for the foreseeable future- that exclusivity outweighs volumes of scale. But defiantely more variants/platform. We've seen this nicely with the CTS, and 'ATS' is supposed to get a convert, too.

To expand on loki's pricing, Chevy's '55 line ranged from $1593 (One-Fifty 2dr sedan 6) to $2571 (Nomad V8). Corvette was $2934. Cadillac's spread ran from $3977 thru $6286 (Eldorado). Series 75 Imperial limo was $6402. 2 years later the ultra-lux Eldorado Brougham was $13704. Obviously, there was no Chevy/Cadillac pricing overlap in '55... or even close. As it should be (and always was). Now, we have an 'ATS' guesstimate to start in the $30K neighborhood, and Chevys (ZR1) are $100K and trucks are $55K. Still F'd up. • • • • Olds- I agree with your theory on the underlying hope (for lack of a better word) WRT Cadillac. There's a TON of good will that a killer product or 2 would meet with great reception. They're waiting.... • • • • >>"Each brand typically had a junior car and a senior car with multiple body styles and engine choices of each."<< In '55, this is not very obvious when it is present. For Cadillac in '55, all models were on 1 wheelbase, with the 60 Special a tad longer (limos: duh). Cadillac was outside the norm with offering the Eldorado with completely different sheetmetal from the doors back. But in general; yes. IMO, it needs to move back toward this model. While we're used to it, situations like the altima/maxima are just inefficient wastes of money. Sure; if you dangle the carrot out there, the rabbits will eat them, but from a business standpoint, it is too often too much. People have been conditioned that more is better, and that's what they want (when they 'know'), but is it? Chevy (and many others) have a bewildering array of models, commonly separated by a few inches in size. I've still yet to see anyone shopping cars with a tape measure (or a printout of dimensions). Is this scenario really much different that a number additional different body styles on 2 (or 3) lines? I would really like to see/know how a 2 (or 3) model car line would work today; not a sudden cold-turkey jump, but in a vacuum: what percentage of Brand X buyers would be willing to choose from a 50% smaller catalog and still find a Brand X vehicle to suit them? I mean, I look at the BMW x5 and the X3 and ponder if the same volume (or 85% of it) could be served by a merging of the 2.

Is pretty telling, when it's the universally sought-after marque. Not sure any one marque would hold that distinction today tho (mostly due to so much market saturation, IMO).

Another vintage Popular Mechanics' survey, random tidbits repeated here (Feb '56 issue- can access via google) ~ • • • • Buyer age~ 18-21 :: 1.6% 22-30 ::23.2% 31-40 :: 32.7% 41-50 :: 22.5% 51-65 :: 16.5% over 65 :: 3.5% Married ~ 85.7% Why did people buy new? (middle of 3 price ranges) ~ Previous car all right but just wanted new :: 42% Previous car no longer dependable :: 41% Previous car used too much gas/oil :: 8.6% Previous car had too many miles :: 7.9% Most important factor ~ Previous experience with make :: 25.3% Trade-in on old car :: 14.3% Exterior styling on new car :: 13.6% Price of new car :: 12.1% Operating ease of new car :: 10.6% Handling ease of new car :: 10.0% Average age of cars traded in ~ low price range :: 3.9 yrs old med price range :: 3.6 yr old high price range :: 3.4 yrs old Does the make of Dad's car influence make selected by buyer? ~ When dad owns GM, son buys GM :: 56.6% (<- #1 choice) When dad owns Ford, son buys Ford :: 42.7% (<- #1 choice) When dad owns ChryCo, son buys ChryCo :: 38.8% (<- #1 choice) New '55 car is ~ larger :: 47% smaller :: 17% same :: 35% How many could get along with new car different size than current car? ~ Present car is right size :: 66% Could use little smaller size :: 20% Could use lot smaller size :: 11% Could use larger size :: 2% Of those who could use a smaller car, how many will buy smaller next time? ~ Will buy smaller :: 17% Will not buy smaller :: 83% How many normally ride in car with driver? ~ Drive alone most of the time :: 44% With one other person most of the time :: 38% With several others most of the time :: 19% If had unlimited money to spend, what make would they buy? ~ Low income range :: Cadillac 35%, Olds 12%, Lincoln 10%, Chrysler 8% Mid income range :: Cadillac 40%, Lincoln 13%, Chrysler 9%, Olds 7% High income range :: Cadillac 41%, Chrysler 15%, Olds 10%, Lincoln 5% How many bought same make as traded make? ~ Same make :: 47% Different :: 53% How many bought same 'family' {Corporation??} as traded make? ~ Same family :: 67% Different :: 33% 51% would look at a different make if buying tommorrow... why? ~ Styling :: 20% Engineering :: 10% Cost of operation :: 9% Price :: 6% • • • • I like these type of 'reality' stats better than what we often get, and would really like to know the answers to these questions for 2005.

ocn is always sly with his 'guesses', and as usual; he's right.

^ >>"CNBC has called Smith one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time"."<<

^ Cadillac profitability is far more significant than sheer volume. Quite frankly, BMW and mercedees have surpassed market saturation... at least in my state. Exclusivity is gone with those brands.

Funny, when the current jag sedan came out (because nobody was copying prior jag designs)- many comments RE 'Subaru headlights' were heard. They've since been changed. Mercedees has been moving forward by issuing a cheap copy of Cadillac's A&S language... IF you pick that one leg of mercedee's numerous design directions... Another oft-heard comment was the strong mazda-esque fenders on the current s-class. Problem at large is that most design is utterly uninspired, most of the rest is derivative. If styling were at the forefront, there'd be hope for something unique, but instead it's mostly finance and regulation steering the ship. Good luck with that.

'tis indeed my man, ETG.

Had a very enjoyable conversation tonight, we agree on a lot of the same factors AFA the 'state of the union' goes, both present & past (especially the past). I had a number of questions that went unasked, but perhaps later; looks like we're going to keep in touch, which I'm looking forward to. If anyone hasn't checked out his website, it's carofthecentury.com Learned 1 frightening, angering tidbit tho; universally disliked Roger Smith signed a crush order on the Y-Job & the LeSabre. LeSabre has been guesstimated to have cost between $500K and $1M to build in 1951. It's damned nearly priceless today. They were quickly sent over to the Henry Ford Museum on long-term loan by a few people who had some sense, until after Smith was gone, in order to safeguard them. Holy crap.

The truth of the matter is, modern design is highly homogenized and bunch of cars look a LOT like a bunch of other cars. We've all seen more than passing resemblance between mercedees and hyundais...

Wonder if the steering issues with the s'notta are going to crop up in the elantra or others and balloon into the quality issues of yore.

Doesn't seem to have quite the bulbous greenhouse the c-class does; looks tailored vs. the generic c-class. So far, not bad.

s-class is tanking much worse- it's down 10% YTD vs the 4% down the Escalade is in the same timeframe. The same 'big-n-thirsty' syndrome over there, too.

Interesting that the 3.5L EB is $1750 more than the 3.7L V6- and we're still not talking diesel yet. Wonder why Ford didn't make it 'cost effective' ?? EcoBoost --tho a compelling package-- competes with it's own 5.0L brother, gets the same mileage (OK: 1 MPG better) and is still $750 more. I wonder if in the long term if Ford will do what Lincoln is doing, and offer the EcoBoost as a zero cost option.