balthazar

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?

He's been pretty much spot-on in these posted articles, but even if he were there in person- I'm not holding out much hope Congress is able to understand the impact, no matter how dumbed down it's served up to them. They're still spinning 1980s stereotypes and pointing their fingers every which way, but never to the mirror, of course...

Code K : Reef Turquoise

A '66 25211 w/ 421 badges, but the copy stated it's a 389/auto car. Still, it has the 'look' :

I have always appreciated the hell out of Pontiac's Super Duty cars, meanwhile cursing the 'racing ban' of '63 that prevented my favorite year, '64, from seeing the SD treatment. Still & all, it would be triple sweet to own a '64 Cat 2-dr sedan on steelies with a 421 underhood. Here's a hardtop - love those 'krinkle-cut' fenders. I've owned 3 '64s- just love 'em.

I knew it immediately, so reading everyone's guesses up until moltar's was fun for me. You guys did a good process-of-elimination. He's correct; it's a '67 Catalina 2-dr sedan. '68 was actually the last year for the 25211 bodystyle- they were ususally under 10K units. I owned a '65 for a short while, and have seen at least 1 of each '61-68. There was a '68 20 minutes from me about 5 years ago, but I believe it sold (they have barns tho.....) Meh- '68 is too new for me. I have not come across a 421/428 2-dr sedan, but I'll bet a few were built. Pontiac seldom ever did any powertrain/model/bodystyle restrictions; I can guarantee it was possible.

>>"People only pick GMC now because they have a choice and can price shop Chevy against GMC."<< B-b-but GMCs are MORE expensive that Chevy trucks- how would that account for 400K people chosing GMC over Chevy if they are "identical" ?? >>"If GMC didn't exist, those buyers would go to Chevy... because Chevy makes the same vehicle."<< Many said the same thing about Oldsmobile / Buick. See the folly of the gamble this time ?? >>"I just worry that if GMC stays, it will be a brand a of badge jobs and that is what got GM into this mess in the first place."<< Sorry, but GMC works on the balance sheet- it did not contribute to any 'mess'.

smk- There is far more to the Corp bottom line that just revenue vs. cost. Healthcare & retirement costs ring any bells? GM has stated certain brands & models ARE making money even tho they do not report them independantly (tho right now that's all up in the air due to the climate) moltar- this is the first time I've read of recent 'effective marketing' by GM (WRT GMC); all I've ever read in the last few years is that GM marketing is the complete & utter pits- how could it only be working here? Perhaps there are enough real differences that the consumer has spoken with his wallet (a few years ago GMC was moving over 590K units). And IMO, the bottom line speaks far louder than the random theory. There is as much... I hesitate to call it animosity... between GMC & Chevy truck buyers as there is between any other 2 brands you care to mention. It would be easy to dismiss the phenom if GMC wasn't selling in such lofty volumes (still near 400K this year).

>>"I remember an old Motor Trend "retrospective" of the FI '57 Bonneville convertible back in pre-internet days. The car was a stunning white with a red interior dripping in chrome - not my usual style, but Damn! I stared at that centerfold for quite some time."<< I wonder if M/T did 2 Retrospects on the P-57-B (the car is certainly worth it), because the piece in my files from 02-79 has the gorgeous!! centerfold but the car has a blue & (mostly) white interior. Pontiac was doing the 'off-shoulder' upholstery thing in the late '50s- only the frt pass & rr drvr seat back inserts are blue- reest shows white. I also stared at this car quite a bit. Most all P-57-Bs were white, but there were 2 black cars- I stumbled on an unrestored one in a PA junkyard years ago (circa 1990), under a tarp. At the counter they told me 'Don't even ask about it!' Apparently it was owned by someone and being stored there temporarily - it disappeared a short while later & I have yet to hear anything about it. I would absolutely love to have a '57 Super Chief Catalina- I just am in love with that name. UPDATE: THIS states 3 black P-57-Bs were built- guess this is a different one since the one I saw did not have a Con't kit on it. 516 is a FL area code...

Excellent condensation of Pontiac then vs. now by Scott there. Only thing I would state is that Pontiac had already begun it's transformation with the 4x2 of '56, and the FI Bonneville @ Daytona for '57. Saleswise, he's right that things bottomed in '58, but product-wise things started earlier than his implied '59. And I would love to learn of these "many books" that have specifically detailed Pontiac's rise; clearly he's talking about Pontiac books in general- I have a number fo those already. But a dedicated, indepth '55-65 Pontiac book would be very interesting. And look at you, "Camino", tip-toeing around over there in Pontiac land- cool.

Priceless, Oldsmoboi; F'ing priceless. This has been some time coming, but boy it sure is sweet. OhDOHZ! : 7 gears doesn't mean 'better' than a mere 6 - say it isn't so !!!!!!!! >>"The M5's seven-speed single-clutch automated manual required perfect throttle/shift coordination for a decent launch, not to mention constant vigilance against redline excess while shifting as well as forgiveness for harsh upshifts."<< Maybe the testers forgot the "Speaker Count' category - surely that would've put the car-&-a-half length behind beemer ahead overall, no ??

>>"Apparently GMC isn't on the chopping block, which makes sense and doesn't at the same time. The brand doesn't cost much to make products for, but at the same time the products are direct overlap with Chevy trucks"<< "Overlap" does not matter now- it's all about the business case. GMC is the #2 division at GM saleswise and it's heavy profit. Killing it is like buying a new triplet of corporate jets.

>>"if i am correct i believe there were 37 different paint schemes for your chevrolet in '57 solids and two tones combined... hows that for color of your choice? "<< Looks like 30, but I don't know if that would include the Corvette or not- may be a few more there if not. There were 39 in '55, tho... COLOR SCHEMES

Cool, CARBIZ; and next door: a '60 Buick Electra 225 hardtop! >>"In fact, he probably loved his Pontiac more than my mother."<< Would it be crossing a line to ask if your father, your mother AND the Pontiac had anything to do... with you? :wink:

Wow- Mother Nature at her most artistic- great Shiv~verado pics!

I have some of these ads in my files...

Far too many want to be able to 'explain' the sitation of GM, and the industry at large, by pointing to 1 or maybe 2 'causes', when the reality of the situation is nearly infinitely more complicated than that. Doesn't mean there's not a point made, just that that's far from the whole picture. And pointing to a non-production audi showcar as the 'reason' GM as a corporation 'fails' needs a winky emoticon after it...

>>"I think the whole notion of global brands is an over-rated goal anyway."<< Agreed. And in that vein; I am still waiting on the answer to my question from page 1: of how Buick's success in China has anything to do with it's continuance here- they share zero costs. Buick in China is not successful because there's a Buick in America, no product development or advertising or assembly plant or administration or any other costs are shared... Buick in China might just as well be called "XYZ". Buick in the U.S. being discontinued would have no effect on Buick China. Now- if costs, models, parts, even model namesplates were shared... if there was even a clear image relationship; that'd be one thing to bear in mind. Not the case to my knowledge. Cadillacs abroad --BLS excepted-- are Cadillacs here. Completely different business case / discussion. I have no idea what Chevys are overseas- aren't a lot of them the same situation that Buick China is? Point is : saying 'Buick is big in China' is no reason to continue Buick here... unless someone can explain how that's incorrect. It's not "global"- it's 2 unrelated divisions with the same name. If you acept that, likewise, saying 'Pontiac must go because it's not global' is rendered illegitimate. In other words, if Buick U.S.A., independant of Buick China is able to continue, Pontiac U.S.A. should be able to also. Let's at least base 'kill/keep' arguments on factual realtities & consistancy. This request applies to GMC, also- if the division is across-the-board profitable @ most any sales level, killing it in the name of saving money is backwards.

In the clear winter sunshine this morning, like a blushing bride stately gliding down the aisle, a pristine all-white '70 Eldorado. Fantabulous.

>>"The Center for Automotive Research has provided a state-by-state breakdown of the impact of the industry, which will be available here on Tuesday, December 2nd."<<

I think you nailed it, WMJ, you even remembered the "i" after every name to let everyone know their cars are "injected".