balthazar

>>"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 ????

>>"Couldn't see that happening..all the Senators/Representatives from the states w/ import plants would block any kind of tax change like that."<< With the state of the economy --locally, nationally & world-wide-- this is a HUGE source of revenue going untapped. Those that politically oppose securing readily-available international funds instead of yet more taxation risk getting ousted in the next election. Besides, don't forget; "we're changing the way Washington does business", remember ?? -- -- -- -- -- >>"This would be an arbitrary decision supported by a minority since consumers have shown where they want to buy their cars from. "<< They'll adapt. :wink:

Sudden tragedy- shocking & awful. Hope he at least lived what could be considered a long & fufilled life. Hope everyone in the family stays strong thru it all. My condolences to you & yours.

>>"Everything this gov't and Congress has recently done is absolutly out of control."<< I don't think this could be over-expressed. >>"Kiss your GM goodbye folks"<< Afraid this is getting more & more likely everyday. Only good thing for me is that 'my' GM has been gone a long while ('57-65), but there will always be examples to own & love & drive. -- -- -- -- -- >>"I repeat, why the heck would president care about a power grab."<< Not the power grab of controlling GM; the picture is far wider than that. >>"he's one of the most popular presidents we've ever had, he's consistently most watched, his opinions sway public polls, the people are on his side."<< Calm down- he only won 52% of the vote. A number of presidents since WWII had greater vote percentages AND margins of victory than BHO. And his approval ratings have been dropping... The peak was the $170M Party You Weren't Invited To, on Inauguration Day. Every day since... the hangover keeps getting worse. >>"why would he care about GM?"<< If they weren't unionized, GM would have already been thru Cha 11... If that's not clear; I've not seen anything believable that suggests he does care.

The government's assessment contradicts some of it's own requirements. -- -- -- -- -- GM has too many brands & GM has to close more dealers than the 35% they are calling out to >><< GM is loosing too much marketshare.... GM needs to sell 900K more vehicles to cover legacy costs >><< GM needs to sell far less trucks & SUVs.... GM did not address the marketshare issue in the last 3 months >><< GM needs to address the marketshare issue in the next 2 months.... -- -- -- -- -- This is a no-win dog-n-pony show from the White House. Like Camino said elsewhere- the end point is already scripted.

>>"And triple tone paint schemes "<< That was a MoPar thing (Packard & Hudson dallied with it, too) - GM didn't do any factory tri-tones IIRC. I know most all of the '50s names well, but 'ChromaFlair' doesn't ring period to me. The name is no big deal to me either way, just tossing my 2 cents in.