balthazar

>>"But it would be nice not to have to do it that way."<< Again- don't sweat it. -- -- -- -- -- EX 9 is RIGHT by me (10 minutes away). Don't know that that is a possible help or not, but taking my unknown future schedule into account, hit me up if I can provide any assistance. Or perhaps you have 30 spare minutes for a sidetrip to see a dusty, forgotten B-59 project....

Agree with stang's suggestion WRT the plates. Far too many vehicles on the road here- drive reasonably and no one will blink at you twice. In the '80s I drove a car at least an hour one day with NO plates on it. Have driven with 'ficticious' plates numerous times, and once drove a daily for 8 months with NO inspection sticker. No problems- just behave yourself. Where in North Jersey are you heading to ??

>>"...we can roll the production and engineering cost in with Opel, shut down various operations in Sweden and move production to various Opel plants, thereby saving a bunch of EU dollars and making Saab competitive in it's home market and abroad..."<< This was the general plan when GM took over saab (combining engineering costs, moving production). saab resisted numerous times & in numerous ways - they don't want to play. Maybe it'll all be different this time around and all saab management will be shown the door so some of these saving practices can be executed. Uh-huh.

Local dealer had a silver coupe up on one of those 'lookit-me' racks about 2 months ago, it sold in about 2 weeks. Haven't noticed another yet.

I'll PM you my PayPal account, so you can send B-59 resto donations.

Oh... is there to be a C&G wiki ?? >:/ -- -- -- -- -- Between '08 & '10, Durant brought about 25 companies: 11 manufacturers, 2 electrical lamp Cos, and the remainder being parts & accessories Cos. Some early marques (not necc. bought before '10) were Sheridan, Elmore, Scripps-Booth, Samson, an earlier Marquette, Randolph & CarterCar. I'm not sure a definitive list of all of GM's ownings has ever been compiled. I maintain a list, but it is not complete either.

OK- slow it down there, pardner. Some misconceptions need straightening out : >>"Chevrolet (basic four cylinders, I6, some V8s)"<< Chevy had 1 V8 in '17-18. Too expensive, it was seldom bought & soon discontinued. Other than that it was all the 171 CI I-4. The 'Stovebolt Six' came out for '29 (and in the process killed off the 4), and was based on the Pontiac 6 (of '26). The next V8 was '55. >>"Pontiac had a "light six" and shorter wheelbase, while Oakland had a six cylinder?, V8, and longer wheelbase)"<< Pontiac started off with an I-6, gained an I-8 in '33- both continuing until Pontiac's V8 appeared for '55. But Pontiac also had an early V8, the 251 CI V8 of '32. This was gained from Oakland after Oakland's demise. Oakland had an I-6 and gained a 250 CI V8 for '30, finishing the marque's run with all V-8 power thru '32, when the brand was discontinued. >>"Oldsmobile-Viking (Viking slightly upmarket from Olds, both equipped with V8s..."<< Olds had a side-valve V8 in '16, but it wasn't until '32 that it regained an 8, this one a 240 CI I-8. Olds 2nd V8 was the 303 CI of '49. Viking was 'upmarket' from Olds and featured a 259 CI V-8. This engine died with Viking. >>"Marquette-Buick (Marquette slightly below Buick in price, equipped with six cylinders)..."<< Right, and Buick was all I-8s. >>"LaSalle-Cadillac (LaSalle bridges gap between Buick and Cadillac, smaller than the Cadillac but equipped with the same V8 so they were sporty and agile."<< LaSalle used a 340 CI V8 in '30, a 353 CI V8 for '31-33. After that, it changed over to an I-8 until '37, when the V8 returned. The Depression forced LaSalle to utilize Cadillac's 353 V8 & the Cadillac V8 chassis, but the marque's I-8 for '34 was actually sourced from Olds and it's price was slashed. The return to V-8s was again sourced from Cadillac. However, weights between the same chassis/V8s were nearly identical- so I don't know about 'more sporty & agile'. But let's not forget that the V8, a Cadillac staple since '14, was the bottom offering, capped by both the V-12 & the V-16 thru out the '30s. >>"I guess I don't understand why Marquette came with six cylinders, while Olds, Viking, LaSalle, Cadillac, and even Chevy had V8s?"<< This is answered above. But power, equipment, size & engineering are equal parts, along with price, of a car's makeup & appeal, not just cylinder count. >>"How different were these companion brands from the typical Olds/Buick/Caddy, etc? It seems that they shared engines and platforms with the parent, but perhaps body and interior were slightly different to warrant the price stratification?"<< Other than GM consolidating Chevrolet & Pontiac manufacturing in '33, and Buick-Olds-Pontiac marketing the same year, and the fact that Pontiac was developed in part to help Chevrolet out in volume -sharing some bodies & other components-, it is crucial to remember GM was little more than a holding corporation, a finiancial overseer of fully-independant companies. The Divisions often sold materials & manufacturing to other Divisions of their own accord without Corp input or limit - a completely foreign concept today. Were these marque mostly different? Of course; they came from different origins, control, & ideals. Think Ford of a few years ago: Ford, volvo, aston-martin, etc. >>"Did the parent brands get the newer technology first, and then it later filtered down to the companion brands, thus keeping the price point lower (or in Viking's case, it got the new tech first?)."<< As stated- the original Divisions were autonomous- and sharing was not automatic even to the respective companion makes. Pontiac was started in a corner of the Oakland factory, but got their very own the next year. But it was still nothinhg like the GM of the last 50 years WRT the trickle-down tech approach.

>>"75,000+/year worldwide should be within reach if the car isn't an absolute bitch as a daily driver. Remember all those people paying over sticker for the Prius? Or the people who think its fantastic that the compact Volt will be $40k? They're going to be Fisker's target."<< Point out a post where someone expressed it was "fantastic" a Volt is allegedly going to be $40K ??? Everything I've read here & elsewhere has damned that number. Here's a car that's $9K more (w/ tax), and suddenly we're thinking 100K volume is do-able? Volt should be looking at 300K unit sales then. And I obviously missed where exporting & worldwide distribution was part of Fisker's immediate plans; I interpreted 100K to be U.S. sales only. Do they have overseas dealers set-up, or would it be manufactured under license abroad? It just sounds VERY optimistic, IMO...

Then ask, BoardBob Lazypants! Quite a bit of awkwardness in the execution : you can see the standard pick-up box- esp toward the front where the rolled top edge protrudes above the wagon quarters, and that bed chrome trim should've been arched to transition better to the cab trim.... but keeping in mind the level of design dollars put into pick-ups of this era, it's still pretty neat all the same.

Chris- Are you saying you like all in that list above more than '50s cars ??... or just that you like stuff from every era ? As far as 'relating' to a particular car, I don't quite understand that. As a fan of automobiles (you heard it here first! ), I have always investigated all eras back to the dawn, so whether I remember them from childhood or not, I like what I like. There are a bucketful of cars I absolutely love for various reasons, yet have never seen any more than pics/ drawings. Or maybe I'm merely more involved than other enthusiasts... because a LOT of what I grew up with bores me at this point.

I, too, hope to see a new American manufacturer become successful.... but 75K - 100K yearly of a $48,000 'family sedan' ??? I hope for the company's sake the rest of the planning is far more realistic. BTW; Columbia ^ lasted a half-decent 15 years; it died off after joining a 5-party conglomerate that went belly-up in 1913.

Right : '57-59 Sweptside.

Don't like the design of the Spark at all, nor any of the others pictured above (the exception being the fiat, which is bland enough to be unobtrusive). Not sure why gimmicky overwrought styling is SOP in this segment.

The '49-50 Mercs were never common when I was growing up (after their time, unfortunately) - in fact, I've never seen one as a daily driver... but via shows & such I've seen at least 1 hundred. IMO, this is one of the most near-perfect shapes ever penned. No bad angles or details, and only (slightly) improved by a tasteful mild chop. Most other manufacturers have struggled & failed to produce such cohesive timelessness. An icon.

Tho there were some intriquing Merc entries all thru Merc's history up to the '70 Mercs, by far & away the most iconic, aspirational Merc for me is the '49-50 Merc coupe. In fact when one says 'Merc', I picture a '49-50 Merc. Merc Merc Merc. Love the '49-51 Mercs.

>>""It's a reputable car company, and they aim for perfection, so (the recall) was surprising," Cunningham said from under the rock we interviewed him from, obviously oblivious to the millions of vehicles Toyoyo has recalled over the last 3 years."<<

Color is great, condition looks great, and the rarity is a huge plus. On the flipside, I never cared for the '73 redesign at all. A 455 would've near doubled the price.

Hmmm... thinking that was not your first choice... but glad something moved.

'Tis correct above: the 300 I-6 was discontinued when the all-new '97s debuted. Shame- it was a great engine- quite strong. IIRC, Ford enticed some ex-Studebaker engineers over to design their I-6, so the trial-by-fire test run was enormous. I test drove both a 4.6L & the 5.4L F-150 circa 2003 (both heavier crew cab / 4x4s) and they had nothing in perceived performance over the 300 in my '94... but that was a RWD RC.

I remember the walk-out we staged in 8th grade, where a goodly portion of the student body went out onto the 'island' inside the semi-circular drive to protest the layoffs of a few teachers. It was peaceful & police were not necc. I watched bemused from the windows of Social Studies, already knowing that public sentiment seldom (if ever) changes much.

>>"GM cars always get heavier though"<< Only GM ?? Back in the day the 3-series used to weigh 2500 or thereabouts, it gained 1000 lbs! How bad does the Accord punish the scale vs. years ago ? Everything gains weight thru to today, not just GM. Cars are already half plastic as it is, with aluminum powertrains & wheels and chopped-down proportions and they STILL weigh 3600-4000 lbs. Electronics & air bags aren't made of cotton candy, and they aren't going anywhere. Don't hold your breath expecting a 3800-lbs car to drop 500 lbs- ain't gonna happen.

See if you can grab an Old Cars Price Guide, study the conditions, & check their numbers. That... and these might give you a start... but the economy is going to rule potential sales far more than even -say- 10% under book value. Car values are a lagging indicator. More indicators~ $12,500: http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/dodge/unspecified/917329.html $19,500: http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/dodge/unspecified/927244.html

Important to note: '59 Chevys had notably weak frames, well known even in 1959. How a full perimeter frame would've changed the results... we'll never know. A '58 DeSoto Adventurer frame weighed 318 lbs, a Chrysler 300; 474 lbs. Just saying; that's a lot of structural steel difference there. A C-channel X-frame in a '59 Chevy cannot compare to a full-on boxed perimeter frame, like one in a '59 Buick, for example. In other words, I place much more creedance in design, than I do in vintage.

>>"i was looking at some Cien photos earlier today. THAT is the mid engine car GM desperately needs to build. which btw, a cien would need a dohc v8 to be credible."<< I'd like to see a triple-turbo inline 12. Summin' different. -- -- -- -- -- >>"but to threaten to ban someone just because they are not agreeing and are supporting their positition is wrong."<< Olds stated his position succinctly and completely. Opinion is one thing, unsupportable blather repeated incessantly is another. Banning is up to mods- I would not suggest such either way- not my place.

If I were running an Engineering department, that thread Olds referenced would be what I would love to do / any manufacturer SHOULD be doing : direct, apples-2-apples comparisons/analysis to determine what works better. And -of course- there are numerous compromises to satisfy in production.... but still; seems like a LOT of conjecture and generalization, when we 'should' have science on all this.