balthazar

Technically yes, but I pump my own fuel every single time. It's not enforced- it's more the action/inaction of the individual station.

Saw a pic in the newest Hemmings Muscle Machines of a new Camaro decked out in the blue & yellow colors of the '69 race car.... can't remember what it was dubbed, but it was shot from a 'worms eye' view and it looked fantastic. ... HERE it is - wow!

Don't find any of 'em either desireable or exciting.

Rolls definately looks the best by far in black with the fender skirts on & the frt bumper off. White & the gold did not do it any favors. Looks like the '90 version had a different, flatter grille, too.

Pretty neat- totally distinctive. Round door is very unique, even if gimmicky. Of course, it's not a Rolls in any visual sense- only the grille suggests it. But as a custom one-off, well done. I like it.

Firstly, a major protion of the NS was redone, not just having a blower bolted on. It is 4.4L, not 4.6L afterall. But I admit I do not know the extent of the redesign; IIRC it involved on the order of 50% of all parts. But that's besides the point entirely : age has nothing over capability.... or in smk's world, peak numbers. I wouldn't care if the SC NS was from '80, if all else was equal. Fact is (again: in smkWorld), in the 2 showrooms, one has X HP, and one has X+50 HP... yet somehow X+50 is ignored while X is world's better.

Thanks for finally admitting this. -- -- -- -- -- BTW- hyundai's 420 HP NEXT year is still far behind Cadillac's 469 DOHC HP that's been available for a number of years now. Want to enter the big leagues, you have to overshoot the benchmarks, not fall short of them.

Agree w/ siegen here : the black rendering, while quite generic, is at least cohesive & muscular. The production car looks like a knock-off copy of a solara, is even MORE generic without the muscle, and that 'backwards' beltline dip has GOT to go. Nothing to see here....

>>"If Chevy can only sell 100,000 Cobalts but the plant is running at a rate of 180,000 then 80,000 get dumped into rental fleets. Hurts resale value."<< Here, residual value is only affected by the percentage of fleet vehicles sold, not at what percentage the plant is running at RE capacity. If the answer to that is that GM is building 180K and cannot/does not trim production to meet a 100K demand, then that is a legitimate criticism and needs to be addressed. But retail/fleet was never initially mentioned. In other words, 2 different plants, both running at -say- 95% capacity, could be turning out a wildly different retail/fleet breakdown... which is why I'm saying capacity does not determine residual directly.

RE: pushrods ~ exactly right :: someone pointing to instrumented NVH graph readouts to prove their lower-performance exotic is "betterer"; SO very lame.

>>"I have most of the plants running at 80% in a 10M market and 100% in a 13M market. It would be nice, for a change, if GM actually built just slightly fewer vehicles than were demanded, say, 1 to 3% under demand. That's the kind of thing that improves residual values as BMW, Toyota and Honda have shown."<< Wait- plant capacity utilization directly effects residual values ??? Care to explain how ? Sticking with this - with 100% utilization, GM must be running 3 full shifts. What of the market returns to 15M? What if in the meantime, other brands are forced to withdraw from the USDM, giving marketshare back to the remaining even in 'only' a 13M market? What if the Volt takes off while gas remains cheap & truck sales increase even more? Where will additional capacity come from? I realize the long term trend has been the opposite of that as far as volume goes, but again- the cost analysis here is very complex. New factory vs. buying & renovating another automaker's plant? 3 shifts of employees & their benefits vs. 1 shift + now? Cost of demolishing all these factories / EPA costs and eventual real estate liquidation capital vs. mothballing them ? Who outside of GM accounting hads these numbers ?? So easy to snap one's fingers and say 'Sell this & this & this', but this market is very rough and nearly nothing is a given.

How about a C&G pool? Model year '09 camaro total U.S. sales.

>>"If the plants could be run at or near capacity in this downturn then they'll be spectacularly profitable when the economy recovers. It's all about recovering fixed costs. "<< Unfortunately, if every plant is running at/near capacity for a 9-10M unit market, if/when that improves to -say- 13M, there is no more capacity. Unless "at capacity" is 1 shift, only. In order to meet this hypothetical increased demand, a new multi-billion $ factory will have to be built- and that would take some years to get up & running. That's poor long-term planning, wouldn't you agree?

w-wait.... didn't hyundai JUST intro a lux line, the genesis.... now there's another above it ?? Is it another brand, or is it a 'genesis equus' ?? Whatever- way to steal your own thunder. >>"Genesis will offer 8-speed transmissions also"<< Problem here is, with the econoturd reputation hyundai has, merely benchmarking the others isn't going to make it- they need to WAY overshoot them. genesis should have a 10-speed trans, 32 speakers & 600 HP quad-turbo biodiesel just to get anyone to even look at it. {/smk}

>>"the trio’s Canton, Mississippi plant will be converted to produce Nissan’s new commercial vehicle line..."<< Gr-rrreeeaaatt time to launch one of those !

Sorry- not following the presentation of this information. Maybe it's just been a long day for me. Wondering how you determined plant capacity & profitability level- Corporate profit is based on FAR more than merely assembly plant capacity utilization. Is a 3-shift SOP cost effective? Obviously, that would require X-number more employees. Should production capacity analysis be based on anymore than 1 or maybe 2 shifts? This would be a complex, plant-by-plant cost analysis to determine the most cost-effective action (plant sale, plant demolition, 1-shift, 2-shifts + more employees, 3 shifts + yet more employees). Apologies if a misunderstanding on my part makes these questions O/T ramblings...

Twins~

As hyper alluded to- no doubt GM's request will pass; they've even gone the additional step (over the politicians he mentioned) of asking permission to break the tax law, as opposed to just taking it upon themselves to break it.

What's the wheelbase on that beast; did I catch that it was only 129" somewhere else ?

And in as much as performance-minded owners 'mod' modern cars to make them better; there's no reason (beyond money) that a classic musclecar cannot EASILY be moded to brake, handle & accelerated much better than it did in factory spec. Sometimes people dismiss vintage muscle because a stock 4bbl is slower in the quarter than some modern 'equivalent', but who exactly mandates you never touch that vintage muscle?? Not to mention the aftermarket for them is world's larger than the aftermarket for modern performance cars. I read an article on a '65 GTO that was pulling down 1.0+ Gs in lateral accel- that's supercar/exotic territory. Mod the vintage iron, out-perform all factory modern cars, and get a well-built & appreciating classic that's unique and admired.

ocn- from your posts on this general matter, it seems to me about the only thing you have to lose is the months & months you'll spend moodily munching pizza, not making any sort of move at all. Time's a-wastin', as they say. I frequent a local pizza joint because the Chicken Marsala pie always whispers 'sweet nothings' to my stomach. Tho the owner's daughter came in once, and if she's not a frickin' model right now, she's just being lazy.

>>"Off topic, but I grew up in Ewing (resident from 1974 <o years old> to 1999 <24 years old>) and went to school with a ton of kids that had parent's employed at the GM plant. "<< My father worked across the street at the Jet Propulsion Lab for about 30 years before transfering to MD until retirement. My family lived in Ewing until '75, then moved out to Hopewell Twsp. When did the GM Ewing plant last assemble vehicles- anybody kno offhand?

Here's hoping the temporarily-dehabilitating misfortune of dialing across a Christopher Cross song never happens to you again.

Well, wasn't that a hum-dinger of a hand-wringer.

I really don't see size class as being terribly pertinent. Sure- if we were talking about a 210" sedan that could be unyieldy in a garage or thru narrow streets/tight parking; that's one thing. But at this diminuative size level, separating every 13" in overall length into yet another 'class' is merely marketing to limit competitors. In other words, unlike the 210" sedan, are there actually true 'livability' size constraints on 176" vs. 157" ?? Who looks at something as small as an HHR and says 'that won't work for me- too large.' I just can't fathom it. So to blindly trudge along with manufacturer and/or governmental-dictated 'classes' and not look beyond those, only limits the consumer's choice. Call it 'close-minded' and not be far off. Or hopefully, does no one shop for a vehicle this way ?