balthazar

>>"There is nothing in life that says you HAVE to drive, let alone drive by yourself in your own private vehicle. In fact, there isn't even anything that says you have to drive X miles per week! Live closer to work, walk to the grocery store, take transit. There are plenty of options, anyway."<< There's a monstrous difference between being single & living in someone else's housing... and being in your own house with a family. The scenarios are far more varied than you appear to be considering.

Sure as hell would hit me hard...

Electric cars pay little to almost zero gas tax, and there's (supposedly) going to be more & more of those...

InBlockCam sounds nicer, same technical level as 'OHC'. Needs to morph into the popular lexicon.

I dunno, compared to the '80 Imperial and the Lincoln Versailles, it's extremely crisp and formal. It's not disproportionate, or bulky, or unpleasant or weird, but it is unique and very different. That's often enough to push some in the opposite direction. I prefer the 'Sheer' '76-79s; the '80-85 took things in almost the opposite direction; took getting used to for most, but I do like them, too. But they have no power. 4.1 was what- 135HP? Sheesh.

I had a Murray pedal tractor as a lad, in looking at Goggle images, it seems it was the exact same one in the pic above, tho mine was orange with a cool Surf City wave decal on the hood. Dad sold it in a garage sale right after I left the house, I wasn't crushed or anything, but he coulda asked.... You are probably spot on WRT the plastic pedal cars- plastic seldom lasts as long as steel, plus it doesn't have the same allure with collectors.

I've sold a number of vintage steel pedal cars over the years: 1930 Willys-Overland, 1930 U.S. Mail pedal plane, 1963 Lil Skipper pedal boat, NOS, 1966 AMF Super Sport, 1968 AMF Fire Chief, and I still have available a 1965 pedal tractor, MIB for sale but I haven't seen, nor do I remember seeing plastic-bodied pedal cars of that vintage. Good luck!

Yes...Chrysler has sufficiently differentiated the Charger and 300, GM *could* do something similar w/ Chevy and Buick were they so motivated. If the Impala & the LaCrosse compete with each other, then the 300 & Charger do also. If anything, the Impala & LaCrosse have a wider 'curb impact' difference than the 300/Charger do, as they share the same brawny silhouette/proportions moreso, IMO.

IBC, FTW!

'04 Silverado : Dark Spiral Grey Metallic (Code 62) '64 Grand Prix : Starlight Black (code A) '64 Catalina : Gulfstream Aqua (code Q) '59 Invicta : Arctic White (originally) (code C) '40 Ford COE : Vermillion Red

Superior power packaging efficiency!! Certainly a numbers guy like smk HAS to acknowledge the more advanced engineering here! This is NO DIFFERENT than proclaiming 'larger insides with smaller outside' superior! WIN!!

Decadent! That is a sweet car that still holds up. An '80 mercedees sedan looks pretty ancient in comparison, IMO. 37K and Touring Suspension- wow. Only thing I have against this car is: no motor. The 2nd Seville in the background has some rubber under it- wonder what the story is there? And I note one of the exceedingly rare '57-58 Eldorado Broughams in the garage...

I'll take one (but I had better not see factual sloppiness, or I'm gonna have to put in for a refund! )

sticks = employee flogging by the flagpole? -- -- -- -- -- I've been seeing Cruzes ALL OVER....

Greater human packaging efficiency than any other state is going to result in greater vintage car packaging efficiency, too. >>"Actually I find lots of pre-80s cars do. "<< I can't think of one. They all have partially integrated bumpers, the lack of bumper leaves a conspicuous cut-out in the sheetmetal- the C-55 not only is straight cut, but the flared lower edge so tidily finishes off the sheet metal that you don't miss the bumper other than you know it was built with one. A '55 Caddy or Olds can't pull this off...

while i like the concept of the retractable hardtop, their execution in general has them coming off as rather offbeat. Canvas doesn't have that "hi-tech" association, but the convertible is supposed to invoke a degree of romance, so it's a plus there, IMO.

Hmmm. It's just that sweet lil flare running across the car that makes it look like it's not missing anything. Like a Shelby Cobra in a way. There's a semi-daily '55 4-dr sedan I pass on the way to one job- a bit more colorful but all there. I haven't seen if it's wearing the 'optional' front bumper yet.

Very very few cars look this good missing the entire front bumper. Weird

S-class quality (and lack thereof) pushed a friend of mine back into a Tahoe. In fact he's on his 2nd max-loaded Tahoe since. I think it is for a different reason: GM has stated so many times that Cadillac is supposed to be going after MB and BMW, that people have expected the brand not to go after the Lexus RX instead of the X3 and X5... IMHO, that's what the complaints are about. Cadillac does deserve the credit of SRX sales voume being very interesting. I am quite uninterested in Cadillac volume- Cadillac should not be chasing volume- doing so is against one of the cornerstones to the definition of luxury: exclusivity. In many markets- saturation has dampened all exclusivity- like for BMW in NJ. Unfortunately, Cadillac; as part of GM, is forever perceived as being primarily about chasing volume. WRT the SRX- lexus stated they were going after mercedees, they surpassed mercedes -depending on who you listen to- in numerous criteria, sales of course, but for many, in luxury, also. So if lexus can build an RX, going after the (mistakenly) so-called LCD and the LS is not damaged by association, and mercedes can build a garbage truck (where is mercedes going with that??) and not damage the S-class by association, seems reasonable & consistent that Cadillac can build a FWD SRX and not fall into a bottomless pit.. Yet the clamor leans the other way... as if RWD was why mercedees and BMW sell so many. It's really quite immaterial, esp in with these junior SUVs. Unfortunately, Cadillac needs capital to expand where they want to, and since the majority of junior lux SUV drivers have no earthy idea which wheels are driving, kudos to Cadillac for raising good revenue with a competitive product. Back to the mercedes garbage truck..... and no; I'm not referencing the G-wagon here...

For my love of large vehicles, I've never been drawn to Suburbans, for some reason. Classic lines, tho.

I suppose the jitney operators have to pay dues and/or licensing fees to be 'allowed' to operate, which perpetuates the JA in the first place, and allows the JA to tell them how to operate their businesses. Who don't love circular legalese?

^ Yet the planet cracks clean thru when the SRX goes to FWD...

I was never in love with the Sixteen aft of the A-pillar.

Yea- I would be interested to know how & why the age & make of taxis needs to be regulated, and what the specific restrictions are.