balthazar

>>"There's nothing sleek or timeless about it. ..."<< Agreed. To my eye, with the same design approach they've used for decades, they all look stale & dated. BMW does 2 things well, IMO; they always nail the fender/tire gaps (including wheel track), and they do interesting things within their lighting, but the overall shapes are nothing great. I like the 'fan' running lighting in what I think it the current 5-series tails. The rest is mid-pack at best, and on occasion it approaches the bottom in some of the overwrought M-stuff.

Good day today : '427 Cobra', burnt orange, loud as hell '68 Charger R/T, black w/ red tail stripe, gorgeous in a way nothing modern can manage. '68-69 Corvette coupe, red, up on 4 jack stands '65 Rambler 2-dr hardtop, black over yellow, sitting '55 Chevy 2-dr sedan, white over red, tubbed, perfect

If I was back in Detroit, I would crawl into those automotive-related buildings, walk to the centers of their great floors and stretch out on the floor on my back, head turned to one side & ear to the ground, straining to hear the echos of industrial might -never equaled- long gone. I would scrabble thru the ruins, searching for some smallest tangible sign they were there... and upon finding one, I would crawl with it into the deepest, filthiest, darkest corner, and I would sleep and hope to dream...

I dunno- I think they should stretch the grilles vertically instead of leaving that huge gap above the bumper... Otherwise, they look like cheap crap.

This may pull in a lot of Pontiac bidders- after all- this is the beginning of that watershed 'German-engineered' automotive contribution :: body cladding ! C'mon, it's a plastic model. Clearly, a key stuck and the starting bid was meant to be entered as "45.00". It would be most telling to see what the supposed 'anonymous' offers were...

>>"the Pontiac V8 is considerably larger than a smallblock"<< FYI- Chevy 350 : 22" wide (valve cover - valve cover) x 26.5" long (H2O pulley to trans surface) Pontiac 350 : 22" wide (valve cover - valve cover) x 28.5" long (H2O pulley to trans surface) I know of a guy with a Buick 455 underhood a 3rd gen T/A. Buick 455 : 23" x 29" Not saying there's not work involved in either of these scenarios, but I would think swallowing a PMD V-8 would not require any metal surgery.

That's pretty damned nice & funky for a VW. That would've made a neat Valiant to the '60 Plymouth. Never seen one of those before, pic either. >>"Those are fantastic examples. Esp. the.... Toyota Corona."<< What happened to your sense of taste, 68 ?? Yikes.

'63 Impala 2-dr hardtop, primer black. '58 Ford 2-dr Ranch Wagon, primer black.

The car is certainly not 'priceless', but it is an icon in the auto pop culture world. Preserving it is the best course of action in that regard.

No surprise there, those are real Pontiacs... and note the MC came along AFTER the Pontiac in this case. 'Rebadged Pontiac', anyone ? :wink:

Why not just take the trunklid off a Chevy II sedan and be 3 notches up on this pile?

Isn't that what prius drivers did when there was a tax credit on it ?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed today at the G20 that "a new World Order is emerging"... so it's here. He neither sounded fearful nor especially supportive; merely factual... so not sure how he would vote in this poll.

Yes, and that was in '72-73. hyper said GM 'hit the iceberg' in the 1960s.

Most recent GP I'd like to own would be '69-72.

>>"The GM system and lack of adjustments to the Sloan model over the {years} has killed GM. Also the fact GM -untill the last 5 years- really has not operated as a single company {for} 90+ years. GM has been more a 7 headed beast with each head with 7 minds of its own."<< This is, on the surface, WAY off. Firstly- the 'Sloan Model' died off in the late '50s - it was based on product pricing hierarchy, and that eroded at that point in time. I would say 'abandonment' certainly is an 'adjustment'. GM operated as a centralized policy / decentralized operational holding Co. thru the '60s and into the '70s, but consolidation primarily beginning in the '80s centralized operations, too. Decentralized manufacturing in 2004 ??? You've got to be kidding. >>"I am sure many with in the walls of GM for years never realized they hit the Iceberg in the 60's"<< Do tell, please....

Been buying diesel going on 3 years this summer- it's never been cheaper than gas and has been as much as $1.25 higher per. Right now it's closer than ever in that time period- only about 30 cents more. Diesel has been higher than gas here maybe 4 years now. Yep- individual state taxes are playing a role here, as well as demand....

>>"Fuel economy, performance, reliability, durability, safety, value for the dollar..."<< Those would be some ways to evaulate a vehicle, yes, but they are not everyone's top 5-6. Others may weigh depreciation/appreciation, servicability, engineering, longevity, and modification-ease higher than things like MPG & safety, and there are still diffferent ways of looking even @ 1 criteria, such as 'value for the dollar'.

The noses always looked... unfinished to me, like someone cut rectangles out of the vinyl-rubber with a utility knife and said 'Done!'.

At issue here RE "too many brands" is not how many nameplates you can name within GM, but to what degree they can make a case for themselves. Within B-P-G, I see very little overlap, even the Enclave / Acadia don't speak to the same demo overtly... and that's as it should be and not dissimilar with other brands. IE: I just saw a hyundai commercial - I did not realize they had 3 same-size small SUVs- I had thought at least 1 was replaced by one of the others, but they're all in the same showroom.

>>"Riiiiight...look how many decades it took for cars to have seatbelts standard..or safety glass...or padded dashes...or disc brakes..or breakaway steering columns...etc. Detroit usually never did anything related to safety unless it was regulated. "<< Riiiiight.... Federal regulation did not begin until '66. GM began installing seat belt provisions as standard in '62. Belts were optional years earlier. I've owned numerous '64 & '65 GMs with factory belts. '64 and '65 comes chronologically before '66, BTW. Ford instituted a nationally-advertised safety campaign in '56, and seat belts were a centerpiece. It flopped badly in the marketplace. Tucker insisted on offering seat belts, but then, too, he was discouraged RE it due to public sentiment. Even today, 40-some years after mandated belts, 20-some years after heavy PSAs & years after mandated belt useage laws, compliance is only in the circa 75-80% range nationally. Perhaps 'Detroit' isn't the only factor here, hmmm? Safety glass : 1926 Padded dashes : 1950s (My '59 Buick has a padded dash.) Disc brakes : 1949 Meanwhile, GM was conducting body integrity/impact testing in the 1930s, and Chrysler was doing actual crash testing in the same era. Mercedes, IIRC, started in the 1950s. I know: "whatever".

That is simple, but unfortunately, the Gov doesn't operate that way, because it requires common sense. Case in point: that was not called out as one of the criteria GM failed to meet (ie: profitability). GM has 20 vehicles that generate a profit, but the Task Force has suggested that 11 of them be discontinued. Conclusion: profitability is not a primary concern. >>"...because GM was saying their share will only fall so much, but they believe it will fall more especially if they are cutting/selling brands, they said GM can't make all their profit from trucks, because those profits wont be there forever once gas prices rise. GM's plan sucked, that's all there is to it."<< GM proposed cutting X-amount of dealers, TF said it wasn't enough... therefore GM's sales projections are automatically wrong even if they're right. 'Viability' means profit. Trucks are still circa 50% of the market, and that segment is NOT going to disappear. To address 'viability', then 'recommend' selling less of those profit-making vehicles for 'green' reasons or guessed-at future markets, is contradictory. GM cannot get to future markets without getting thru present markets. They NEED profit. If trucks make profits, wouldn't --say-- offering a small tax credit boost sales and work toward both the future and a ROI ?? If GM's plan sucks, so does the TF's 'analysis' of it and recommendations RE it.

In a transparent money-grab, eBay only permits PayPal payments now; sellers cannot even suggest other methods are accepted or risk their auctions being pulled. Supposedly, buyers can ask if other methods are accepted, and only then can sellers accept anything else.

GM will not survive Chap 11. The perception that they have railed against for x-number of years will smother the Corp completely, and the only exit will be Chap 7.

Yeah- that'll be really "interesting'. Interesting word choice, there. -- -- -- -- -- >>"just taking it for what it is--a criticism based on talking to experts within the industry."<< What 'experts' are these? -- the Auto Task Force ?? Not a single person with any business experience or education among them. How are they qualified, again ?? >>"...they don't give a prescription for how to solve the problems because that is not thier job! their job was to accurately asses GM's own solutions to GM's problems....and dealing with whether those solutions were really going to bring profitability. "<< They don't give a 'prescription' NOT because that's 'not their job', but because they have no idea. Which is exactly why they are not qualified to accurately assess anything, either, unfortunately. Thusly, the contradictions. Is a little common sense and a basic knowledge of the workings of the industry too much to ask from them ????