balthazar

Cheap, easy to engineer repro parts for completely worthless cars no one wants: :rotflmao:

I'm going to revise my opinion on this Corvette. The lowness/proportion of the car is exotically extreme, and the bird's eye view is 100% fantastic, but I do agree with those that found the front grille & the radical fender contours distasteful/ overwrought.

Hilton Head Sports & Classic Car Auction : Lot# 85, 1959 Pontiac Bonneville Tri-Power Convertible, est selling price: $125,000-$150,000. 2008 Barrett-Jackson Auction : 1959 Pontiac Catalina Convertible, the 'Pink Lady' SO car, belonged to Harley Earl's wife, sold: $225,000. 35 years ago, you'd have a hard time getting $7500 for the same cars. :rotflmao:

>>"Honestly I look at it as an engineering marvel, not in the sense of its complexity but in sense of actually solving some hard problems yet keeping it simple and cheap."<< I think you are taking this out of the context of history. This car, spec-wise, is not anything new, but a return to minimalist transportation, a concept executed countless times thruout automotive history but numerous marques. IMO, tho, it's highly overdue here in the U.S., but government regulation will no longer allow anything remotely close to this.

Not sure I can embrace the '66 Pontiac-esque RR fender contours here, but overall it's pure sex. Also- took long enough for an automotive emblem to surpass the Viper's in coolness, tho that was not an easy task...

It bounces around a bit stylistically, and I think that's also part of the rejection in addition to the 'skim over' impression (not to mention the expectation built up over all these years), but it does work together pretty well once you get into it.

>>"Ultra rare Lincoln. Aluminum body. One of a very very small number."<< I know where there's an aluminum-bodied '33 Model KB V-12- gorgeous restoration. Not sure which model it is, but the owner tells me there were only 15 originally built. >>"Jaguar. Don't know the year, but looks pre-war enough."<< Well -snif- being it's a jag, and all that that stylistically implies.... could be a '73. >>"The Lincoln's headlights are awkward, the grille says late 1930s but the headlights, nice as they are with their reverse teardrop covers, say 1941."<< Agreed. In actuality, that's a Model K, largely unchanged '36-39. Same guy who owns the '33 has a '39 limo. I love the whole face of this gen Model K, including the headlights. If they were not so well integrated, I could see an arguement against them, like -as you mentioned- the Pierce-Arrow's. >>"Just make sure Balthazar does not see it, those recesed grilles are not to his liking."<< Well, they are aesthetically idiotic.

>>"That's crazy. Did you attempt to buy it?"<< Couldn't- it was rollin' one way & I was rolling another. Saw one of those FWD-proportion ferrari 360s drive by as I was workiong off the tailgate of my truck today. As it droned off into the distance, the audio impression was none other than one of those commercial leaf blowers on wheels - I thought these things were supposed to produce some sort of mechanical symphomy ... BFunimpressiveD. I remember standing in the garage of a house I was working in a few years back, with a couple of Italian immigrant painters. The ex-husband comes out of the house and climbs into his ferrari 355 spyder, starts it (rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat) & drives off. The one painter asks me to affirm I am in love with it, to which I reply 'its sounds like an old Plymouth starting up'. Mystically, he made as if personally insulted at that. Perhaps it's not enough of a sampling to go by, but these 2 up-close exposures failed completely to cement the supposed religious experience I hear so many pre-teens say I should be having in the presense of a ferrari.

My son picked the CD up about a month ago - at first listen-thru I was like, 'it's crap', but then select riffs began bouncing around in my head.... it's been 'checked on' in iTunes and it repeatedly popped up in autoplay during my nightly surfing. Been listening to the album repeatedly for about a week now, and am finding it increasingly... infusing. Where as I would've given it an initial '4' on a 1-to-10 scale, I now see the result of a lot of work on Axl's part. Have to say I like it overall- it's won me over. Anyone bothered to listen to more than the occasional radioplay?

>>"Access to the "Rated R" forum."<< I thought the Lounge pretty much was already rated R... to the point this perk needs at least a cursory definition/description, IMO, ie; what's this expected to consist of? >>"Ability to request free upgrade to the "Politics and Social issues" forum."<< Ahh, that's why this 'isn't ready'. Too bad this has been deemed 'too hot to handle' for the general membership, I'll miss peeking over the fence into CrazyTown. Sorry, boys; I have no spare change for websites- I'm scrabbling for dimes & nickels as it is. Already dumped half of my subscriptions and wearing my clothes to a doubled hole count. I'll have to stick with the riffraff in steerage.

>>"now you are contradicting yourself"<< Not at all. I said a car & a truck aren't functionally different, ie; they both drive, carry stuff & people and go the same places (lets stay on pavement here). But to look for the same degree of padding this & soft-touch that in a truck, a usually much bigger truck, means that all the money spent there comes OUT of the rest of the vehicle, giving you the same degree of chinzy tinfoil sheetmetal and barely-engineered mechanicals cars are built with - not good when a truck is often stressed well beyond manufacturer's recommendations. That's the physicality of a truck vs. a car... the other thing I was addressing is the idea that a truck should only be used like a truck, as opposed to a car. I don't get that: trucks can do both (be used as a car or a truck), a car only one. Truck wins.

About 2 years ago I saw a guy in a tiny river-side town with a stock, worn, baby&#036;h&#33;brown '40 Willys coupe as a daily driver. As a DD, the age didn't bother me, but the rarity, desirability and value of it as is, did.

Anecdotal observations should be noted as such, IMO. I drive my truck to work everyday, too; is it supposed to only sit in the driveway when I'm not hauling and/or towing ?? If you cannot see lumber, etc sticking out over the tailgate, am I using it like a car ?? Or are your observations based on the building's function you see these in the parking lots of, ie; a pick-up in a software company's lot is "being used like a car" ? A truck is functionally no different than a car- except it has no trunklid. No reason in the world that whomever wants to commute in a truck should not do so.... what; because it can do more than a car it cannot also do what a car does? There certainly are a fascinating bunch of interesting associations & assumptions WRT 'proper' useage of different vehicles...

Saw a solid driver '55 Chevy 4-dr sedan (maybe a Two-Ten), multi-colored blue paint & primer, but straight and sitting on fat blackwalls w/ 5-slots. '65 Buick Wildcat hardtop fastback, bright red, ... couldn't make much out thru the shrubs it was parked behind.

Neither- plaid insulated. Not sure if either my answer, or your question, really means anything... but feel free to probe further.

Steel, not concret... oops.

The above bugatti's grille is pushed back into the car a foot & a half, well behind the headlights. It's barely viewable even at this quarter view. Obscures the vehicle's ID & 'face', and envokes the image of a car impacting a pole. Requires a utilitarian 'spreader bar' to keep the fenders from vibrating too much, and nessitates bland flat sheetmetal panels to close off the front fenders to the grille. It's just... wrong on many levels. I'm would like to think the exposed, riveted sheetmetal edges were a stylistic choice rather than a construction neccessity, because I actually like the rivets... but I'm doubting it. Not sure why the front fenders are higher than the rears- weird. Headlights are kinda just... plopped there. Body is militairly slab-sided, and I don't care for the visual tension the side glass makes touching the radius of the rear fender at some angles. Choices though these may have been, they are not examples of what I would call fantastic styling. -- -- -- -- -- Define 'detailing', 68, please. To my eye, there is far more of it, -say- here:

Yea- one of 17, sold at auction for $4.4M. Owner left it in his estate, parked since '61 IIRC. Meh; so many of these european coahcbuilt cars have 'unfinished edges' to them I find it impossible to overlook (but not the Rolls of this thread). Bugatti's very deep-set grilles always looked unintentional to me- I have never been able to warm up to them.

>>"The reality, though, for many years, is that most trucks have been bought by normal car buyers to be used as cars... so most people expect car like interiors in trucks "<< Any documentation for this theory? Also, a question- if one frequently loads the trunk of their car with cargo, are they using it like a truck ? I've seen polls that have stated pretty clearly that a large percentage of truck owners use them as trucks, including cargo & towing. Tons of trucks here- vast vast majority used as such, not as 'few times a year trip to HD'. Sure, there are some show/cruiser trucks, but to assume car buyers buy a truck with no need for a truck and expect it to be like a car is about as far fetched as one can get, IMO.

I love this sort of 'mirage' styling review: the matrix & Vibe are identical except for the hood & front bumper. Same "craptastic"ly bland sides on the matrix. That said, the matrix's face is clearly is more convoluted & disjointed... but BOTH are ugly, nasty little cars. While we're at it, WTF is that monsterous chrome... growth on the door of the 370z above ???

>>"2.) Of course it's interior is better than the `05...the bar was set pretty damn low 3.) Interior was better than the competition then, the Ford and the Dodge have just raised the bar is all."<< The " '05 bar" is NOT what I would call "damn low" at all. Trucks should not be judged by the same criteria as cars, period. Soft-touch & padded vinyls DO NOT LAST in the environmental useage of a truck. '05-generation has excellent functionality, practicality & ergonomics- primary criteria for buying a truck in the first place. Sorry, but most of the reviews of car rags in general ring this true: new wins over old. Keep in mind: the entire publishing industry revolves around pushing this, or the next issue isn't nearly as 'exciting'. >>"The Chevy’s logbook also contained praise for GM’s ........ column shifter."<< Now this one is shocking for it's honesty. Ergonomics & practicality ranking over 'sportiness' & 'modern' ?? Somebody @ C&D didn't read the memo.

My buddy has an '08 Silverado 1500 LTZ 4X4 Crew Cab- there is no issues whatsoever with interior noise.... unless Chevy deleted a bunch of insulation for '09, I don't buy it as significant enough to mention. Read the linked article- all have excellent attributes, but significantly & without a doubt, the entire forced ranking system of magazine comparisons is tired & of little to no use. Time to dump it. All points of contention mentioned are subjective relative to the end user's needs & preferences. I mean- wondering if the Dodge's 2-tone paint will take in Texas- who are these guys? Not to mention, these 3 are all great trucks that are extremely competitive with each other- really too close to call. Dump The Rank. -- -- -- -- -- As a sidebar- I have been eyeballing the current stylisitic gen of the Silverado since it debuted, and I still cannot wrap my mind around how Chevy managed to make it look 1-2 feet wider than the Ford & Dodge.