balthazar

>>"Which got me to thinking, maybe designs like the '61 Lincoln were the beginning of the end for purely American design."<< Excellent observation. There certainly was a 'tic' in the timeline there; a shift in design consciousness. I blame Exner :wink: (tho in this case it's Elwood who's 'guilty'). And I think that 'tic' reset the end point (today) of the line to a degree. If you look at auto design broadly, there were major characteristics of design in each rough decade, and there just has not been much in way of fundamental progress since the 'shrink-wrap' '80s. And by the '00s, were stuck with shuffling details as 'design progress' and homogenization is SOP. As an indication: take a '40s, '50s & a '60s windshield and lay them on the ground. Even the most cursory car person could likely peg them, timewise. I doubt even the most ardent enthusiast could separate an '80s, '90s and '00 windshield. >>"I believe that Lincoln dash photo is a '60. If you look at the exterior shot, you can see the top of the 4 pod cluster."<< Gotcha- correct. '60 has the coolest interior of '58-60... then '61 falls fairly flat -unhappysigh. I've searched the internet a few times unsuccessfully for a pic- I still recall opening the door of a '56 DeSoto in a junkyard circa '90: the stamped aluminum sill plate had an integral triangulated 'placard' -not unlike a traditional desk nameplate- that stood upright alongside the front seat, with stamped & painted 'DeSOTO' script- so anyone looking @ the car from the side would know it (if the sweep spear wasn't doing it's job). My mouth must've dropped open, and that detail has stuck with me ever since.

Just this past summer I had a chance to look over about 4 '58-60 Lincolns- one being a hideously rare '60 Lincoln flower car (could not get pics due to the tight quarters & poor light). The exteriors are funky & polarizing to be sure, but having never really looked these over in person before, I was really amazed at some of the detailing- wild sh!t. IIRC- that 4-pod interior is from '58 HE, no? Top-shelf design, fantastic stuff. I gained a new respect for them that day. Same place had a '61 sedan, and while the exteriors are almost painfully clean, the interior lost all that upscale funk- got a big Meh from me there. Frankly- I sometimes think the '61-up Lincolns get a smidge too much credit for beauty. I LOVE the '60 Imp- those huge gauge pods and the 'square' wheel ~ happysigh! I once pursued getting a green '60 Cadillac Series 62 coupe- would still love to have one of those one day- drives like whipped butter. I believe that's Persian Sand up above. Nice pics- HE!

Saw a burgandy circa '37 Pontiac sedan at a service station, and a dark green, older restoration '68 Cougar XR-7.

Gentlemen, please, the issue is quite closed. 1967 Pontiac Catalina 2-dr sedan, style # 25211. None other. NEXT!

Makes sense. eBay has so mucked up & complicated their rules & procedures, it makes me reluctant to sell anymore. The entire no negative buyer feedback thing is the stupidist, most transparent grab for dollars I've seen, and requiring PayPal exclusively is right behind that. I just opened a specific bank account to tie to PayPal, but I still haven't registered w/ PP yet. I have all sorts of stuff to sell clogging up my basement, too.

>>"As for The Grand Prix... it was termed as personel luxury car."<< As ususal, I am going to take issue with your take on vintage Pontiacs. Sure, pundits lumped the GP uncerimoniously into the 'personal luxury' catagory, but F them. Pontiac RE the GP ('64) : >>"...Grand Prix conjures up an image of crisp, uncluttered styling and off-the-line performance in a very special Pontiac car! Crouching {nice 'tiger' reference!} under the GP hood there's a 306-HP Trophy V-8, the most powerful standard engine of any Pontiac. Optional engines up to 421 cubic inches, 370-HP for the other than faint hearts. Bucket seats, the kind that make you feel part of the car {they are excellent!} are part of the standard package. Likewise, a tachometer (with manual transmissions) or a vacuum gauge (with HydraMatic) and center console are also standard. An optional 4-speed manual will more than pacify the purist. If not, add aluminum wheels and brake drums. They dissapate heat- if you still need a reason after you see them."<< -- -- -- -- -- >>"The near Luxury performance cars did not really start showing up till the mid 70 in any kind of numbers and BMW pretty much st the market with their lower end cars. "<< Numbers are immaterial. BMWs were like ghosts in the U.S. in the early '70s. And '70s BMWs - "luxurious" ??? 1963 GP interior ~ 1972 BMW interior ~ I don't think so, Tim. {Caught a few Home Improvement reruns this week...} Nice board-flat 'buckets', BMW! -- -- -- -- -- BMW helped popularize the tiny, premium-priced 'sports sedan' market, but they were initially NOT luxurious in the least, nor did they have any performance to speak of other than competent handling (3-series was still out-accelerated by a Chevy Beretta in the early '80s). Here, BMW started nothing and was quite late to the party.

>>"The only other import I have ever owned was a '72 Toyota..."<< >>"My first car was a new '75 Chevy LUV..."<< Ummm.... -- -- -- -- -- The question of 1st gen CTS vs. 2nd is very appropriate, tho still individual tastes vary...

The actual DFP writers & editors must be bound & gagged in the supply closet...

I'm down with #'s 114, 84, 64, 49 & sometimes 11 if they're really workin' it. SANs, I call 'em. The rest is nonsense.

>>"...I am 100% against either of them fighting for the same buyers ever again."<< Esp since they're going to be in the same showrooms exclusively. I see Camino's point on Buick and agree: they should have performance, just not advertise it.

Again only heard bits-n-pieces via the radio today (coverage was notably less than yesterday). Some of the senators --and one that springs to mind is that wackadoo Waters from CA-- still are unable to grasp the reality of the auto industry, even with as much coverage as has been given and the in-their-lap immediacy of the situation. It would probably be embarassing for the politicians in question if they had much in the way of self-awareness as opposed to self-importance. I am also in agreement with those that feel some sort of immediate package will pass. Even the obtuse seems to be learning from the hearings...

>>"BMW pioneered the near luxury perfomance cars"<< Actually, that would be the Grand Prix that pioneered near-luxury performance, having more of both than BMW offered in the '60s. >>"We need a Delorian mind set but with todays best parts."<< Right: the rebel streak, the outlaw spirit. In today's homogenized industry, I don't think it would take all that much to make big strides forward, image-wise

'76 Cheyenne. Up for auction Dec 13th, not far from me. Sure looks in nice shape from the pic. Claimed mileage: 10,320. I'll be there checking out a host of other 'one-man's-treasure's if anyone is interested in an in-person report.

Haven't checked the new CTS out, then? It's much more than 'halfway comparable' to that class's mercedes.

I also used to see a local steel company's non-articulated trucks with the half-cab, so long steel beams could be transported, but these half cabs were on full-width frames w/ full-width axles; only the cab above the deck height was narrower. I'm sure somewhere there have been narrower tractors for some purpose... Roger- you of course noticed that the truck next it (apparently) had the same type trailer... Dragon wagon is a full-width trailer with a deck close enough to the rear tires that a vehicle could be driven up onto it. I still think this one is for non-wheeled cargo...

Assuming these narrow roads also have only gradual, sweeping turns ... OK.

Cannot conceive of a reason to have a narrower tractor. Never seen one that narrow, either. Unrelated, but had to post:

Too narrow & no support for any sizable boat. The narrowness of it certainly is specialized & limiting... Most of the girder transports I've seen have had independant rear trucks; the girder becomes the 'trailer frame'.

construction equipment may be out- the trailer deck is open and isn't even as wide as the tractor's track... unless it's for one of those machines who's wheels overhang the sides. Problem is, this is not a lowboy (you cannot drive over the rear tires) and it's not a detachable neck where you can drive up the front. Rear tires are notably inboard of the tractor's track; wider would add stability if the weight was extreme. Transport for non-wheeled cargo is a definite.... but what, and why so narrow ?

hp/liter absolutely is irrelevant... but I cannot resist pointing out: >>"113 hp per liter is doable."<< BMW should be able to figure it out : Pontiac already builds a 130 hp per liter engine.

I do not know. Observations: rear 'fenders' are extremely makeshift - homemade just for over the road transport? From the front view- the rear of the trailer seems to be split from side-to-side, yet I see no evidence the trailer 'butterflies' open (and dual axles would make that impossible). I see the 'cradle'-esque build of the Veed rear crossmember and the huge tires, but there is no corresponding cradle or ledge at the front. The fact that the rear tires are HUGE has to be significant... but why I can't guess. Looking forward to the answer...

>>"Back when Bunkie Knudsen took the division over in the late 50s, Pontiac was a rickety organization churning out bland products to the point that it was beginning to have trouble justifying its existence within the GM divisional structure."<< Who wrote this ?? Pontiac was no more "bland" than Chevrolet or Oldsmobile, and in fact was outselling Olds from WWII thru '53, when Olds finally edged by. There were some discussions internally RE Pontiac in the early '50s, but the division certainly was not "rickety" nor was it in any danger of being discontinued, PMD just lacked a strong identity- that's it. That turned around starting in '57, when Pontiac indeed began to denote performance, as it did majorly thru the '60s & '70s. THAT'S the heritage of Pontiac. Pointing to anything earlier than when they made their mark is akin to claiming a pro football star's heritage is his jr high school football performance : it ignores the accomplishments that put him in the public eye. >>"What GM needs is someone with the balls to return the company and its divisions to a Sloane model of pricing and focus. That would pretty much solve everything, instead of nearly every division overlapping with another and selling something at nearly every price point."<< That's pretty much what I've advocated for years on this board- increasing the autonomy of the brands- they were at their strongest when they competed against each other as well the rest of the market, and the fact that they were part of a corporation was immaterial to the public; these were different makes building different cars. The overlap factor will be rendered immaterial also if differentiation returned. I know: no money. :sad:

I heard a chunk of the hearings via radio today. At the opening, I also thought Dodd, whom I usually don't care for his views, did have a decent & blanaced approach to the situation, and agree that Shelby has already made up his mind no matter what the situation, but then again; he was instrumental in securing $650 million in tax incentives for transplant automakers in AL (toyota, honda, hyundai & mercedes). You know, I could not help wonder about the superficial 'flip side' : last time congress asked the CEOs how they got to DC... I'd sure like to see congress asked what cars they own before they vote. I had the same impressions Camino did on the overviews of each person at the mike. One thing that did jump out at me most distressingly tho, was the repeated mention of 'marketshare' as a seeming determining factor to the decision. Financial success & the employment picture are a lot more important than marketshare percentages, which frankly I feel is borderline immaterial.

>>"...you want to keep money holes like Saab, Saturn or Hummer?"<< Repeated posts on this board advocating dropping the dead weight at GM in the form especially of saab, Saturn & Hummer.

No one catch the Arrowhead on the decklid?