balthazar

>>"Balthy: Anything within 5-years is considered "new" by you? I'd go as far as 7-8 years."<< To be blunt, I consider anything newer than 1980 'new'. .>"My dad was a big time Pontiac guy in his younger days"<< Grandfather: '55 Star Chief Catalina 2-dr hdtp '57 Star Chief 4-dr hdtp '63 Catalina 4-dr hdtp '66 Bonneville 4-dr hdtp '69 Bonneville 4-dr hdtp '72 Gran Ville 4-dr hdtp '76 Gran Ville 4-dr hdtp Father: '63 Catalina 4-dr hdtp (took over his father's) '70 Catalina 4-dr sdn '77 Catalina Safari wagon Me: '64 Grand Prix 2-dr hdtp '64 Catalina 4-dr sdn '64 Catalina Ventura 4-dr sdn '65 Catalina 2-dr sdn '65 Bonneville 4-dr hdtp '65 Bonneville 2-dr hdtp '66 Grand Prix 2-dr hdtp Brother: '84 Trans Am 2-dr coupe '68 Firebird 2-dr hdtp '71 GTO 2-dr hdtp '63 Tempest 2-dr sdn >>"Anybody got a line on a '65 Bonneville convertible?"<< I have a frame & powertrain if you're looking for a project....

I don't know if the auto rags are setting preferences, or merely echoing them (meanwhile reinforcing them). But I believe you're right, OC; appealing to these hack shlubs is probably the best course of action. The question is, can even the most stellar vehicle eclipse the ingrained opinion they almost all carry WRT the rest of the catalog?

>>"Hummer, Saturn, and Saab do not count."<< Agreed, completely. I would buy new if I could justify it, budget-wise, but I have 2 sons and disposable income is earmarked elsewhere. Besides, for me- "new' is anything within 4 yrs old. As for Cadillac, you know this is sourced from 'my era'; the '50s-60s, where Chevys usually could only afford to have 3-piece front bumpers, etc, while Cadillac was building 175+ possible different cars between models, trims & options. I do appreciate the -say- '56 Chevy (same buddy also owns a '56 Bel Air 2-dr), but waggle a '56 Eldorado Seville infront of me and I'm jello. A lot of it also comes from the back story; the innovation, detailing & the craftsmanship (pre-war thru the '70s). These cars were truely special, on par with the world's best, or better than them. Spin the dial to today and I think the CTS is fantastic (both gens), and when I talk of possibly owning one of them someday, that's the type I'm thinking of. It will still pale in my book to a true classic Caddy, tho. I would enjoy a '28 CTS, but I would still daydream of a '60 Eldo Seville... Best of both worlds : stick me in a '60s Pontiac.

I would love to own a Caddy someday- they were my first automotive love, but that's a few decades off. I do not care for most Chevys, unfortunately; the Corvette is awesome, the Camaro, too, and I like their trucks (buddy has an '08 Silverado 1500 Crew 5.3- what a beautiful truck), but I am over here in a Chevy from the Ford truck camp; and with the job Ford does there- I could go right back. But the biggest thing for me is, I may never buy new again- I cannot stomach the depreciation- all new cars suck in value retention vs. a 3-4 yr old car. But if another GM division goes away, I will be heartbroken. Not to the point of swearing off GM, but heartbroken all the same.

While the DOT may approve seat belts, they don't approve seats, so the latter was a bluff.

Local station here calls it G.R.I.P. - Get Rid of Incumbant Politicians. As good or better a voting policy than any hardline party affiliation. Sadly, after observing the last presidential election process, it seems independant thinking is rare & fading fast.

I've driven countless times in vehicles not equipped with belts. Here my thinking aligns with Camino's general attitude- this should be my right/decision. Whether or not I wear a belt pretty much only affects me. Whether or not I drink & drive affects others. My B-59, my '40 and one of my '64s have no belts. Only reason I'm going to put some in the B-59 is the performance ability.

>>"I've said it before and I'll say it again. For all the hatred on here for the automotive press, when GM produces a vehicle that deserves praise, they get it."<< Within the couple pages of that article, maybe so. Let's go farther. The opposite creeps into unrelated pieces consisantly. Ever read a comment in a honda article about how '70s-early '80s honda's began rotting within months of being bought? Or a reference to chain drive in the 1960s? No you don't. Ever read a 21st century review that mentions the Vega, Pinto, Edsel, 'floaty wallowy land yachts', 5 MPG, tailfins, etc, etc, etc? Countless times. How about loose references to the 'crappy cars Detroit built' for the last '10', '20', '30', '40', or '50' years? That number jumps all over the place and lumps the 120-some domestic model in a given year all under 1 umbrella. It 'sets the stage' in the subconscious that even the current praise-worthy vehicle is a singular fluke, an abnormality in a sea of The Usual. This is where 'journalism' falls flat in it's duty to be factual, accurate & informative, instead of lazy, slanderous & stereotypical. The current article is but 1 piece- the 'hate' covers a much broader behavioral pattern.

There has never been a retro-active auto equipment law AFAIK. The only thing that comes remotely close (and IMO it's not at all the same as 'vehicle equipment') is child restraint devices/ manners. No state mandates you to install belts where they weren't before, but I know for a fact that if your vehicle has belts and you are not wearing them, you can be ticketed, even if that vehicle is pre-mandate. I don't know if you could fight and win that; I believe if the car has them, by law they should be on. If you have a pre '67 car (front lap belts were federally mandated in Jan '66) without belts, you cannot be ticketed. I cannot imagine the cops would press a situation where a date built code would prove you in the right. In other words, Camino- pre-mandate cars are exempt. I have read this statue in the state motor code books. GM started building cars with provisions for easy belt mounting (threaded bungs in the floor) for the '62 MY. I believe rear belts came online for '68. I am trying to take to heart the words of a cop friend of mine- he's seen horrific accident injuries due to not wearing belts, but he won't elaborate.

Decades ago Cadillac only had sedans & coupes, now they also have a roadster, a full-size SUV line, a crossover, and 'small' sedan and true high-performance variants. A new coupe & 'sport wagon' are on the way. Looks like trending upward to me. Since Cadillac's expasion worldwide has been recent & limited, and the marque primarily sells in the U.S., seems a U.S. comparison of numbers vs. audi is legitimate, since FOG brought the American market up.

The wife's GP has about 91K on it. I really want to replace it but it's very unlikely before the end of '09. What would follow it up, I have no idea at this point. She'd love another Mustang, but it's too small. My 2500HD is just broken in w/ 73K on the clock- I expect to keep it at least thru '16 (that's be 10 years with me). Funny, my grandfather used to buy every 3-5 years, and my father keeps his cars over 10 years, which always seemed 'boring' to me. Not sure how gramps did it on his salary. Dad could easily swing the same replacement schedule- but I guess it's not his thing. Me- I'm repulsed by the depreciation of a new car purchase.

Is that every single saab imported for the '59 MY ? :wink: Note how the saabs bear a much closer visual relation to -say- 1948 than 1959 ? typical of european marques in the post-war period. Weird pairing; Buick started carrying Opel in '58.

moltar- you do far too much assuming & stereotyping, IMHO. And you are never going to 'get a bead' on me in particular by making assumptions. I'm off the charts far more than I let on, here. From an online test pointed out here IIRC, I 'tested' out as libertarian. I tend to align with the core principals of conservatism, but following one party blindly is not responsible citizenship, IMO. No single politician has ever been -logically-assessed- worthy of either unilateral support or condemnation. Those who believe otherwise are where your delusionals can be found. Thanks 68- nicely 'nutshelled'.

>>"Sorry Balth. I cannot agree with you here."<< Your objection is you shouldn't have to tell the cop where you've been, correct? Go ahead & lie to protect your travel starting point- there's no reprocussions to doing so because it's not verified. Bingo- your privacy is 'protected'. This question & your answer is far less likely to trip you up than receiting your license info verbatim or the like- something the cops also don't need to hear what you say (your license is in their hand after all), just how you say it. I often don't belt up- it comes from my early 'mind meld' of owning/driving pre-seatbelt-mandated vehicles, and it's stuck with me. I try and make a point of it on highways & long trips, but often around town, I don't. 68- is your B-59 retro-fitted with belts? I am intending to put in front outer lap belts and that's it.

>>"In New Jersey, they still do the filling for you. Nice at anytime of the year. "<< Bah- I pump my own fuel all the time. I can be paid & gone before an attendant opened the fuel door... Repeat- what was gas in CA in Oct '07 - anyone recall ?

>>"...Your lovely Republican president/administration.."<< It's not 'mine' - I didn't vote for him ! >>"CongASS"<< Would this be your 'lovely Democrat CongASS' ?? :wink:

I actually can see valid points from both sides of the issue. -- -- -- -- -- >>"I might have reacted with the exact same answers to their prying questions. Where you have been and where you are going have NOTHING to do with Sobriety."<< C'mon guys, you should all be able to see thru this! 'Where you are coming from' is completely unverifiable; ie- you can answer with any one of 2 dozen choices, no proof is ever requested and the cop will not know if it's the truth or not. Asking that question is NOT to find out where you've been and 'invade your privacy', it's a topical question the applies to every motorist on the road and ususally entails at least a sentence in answer - this is where undue nervousness, slurring of speech and nonsensical answers point toward being under a controlled substance/alcohol. Cop doesn't care where you were, he's assessing 'where you are right now'.

'Journalism' in the U.S. (and likely in Canada, also) has degraded into a toxic cess pool. You can almost smell the fear of creeping irrelevancy WRT shrinking marketshare and the flight to non-paper sources, and this is a prime example of that fear; hoping the 'shock factor' gets the name to buzz for an afternoon. Not that they disbelieve it . . .

>>"Umm... The {Cadillac} SALES both in american and especially outside of america in relation to the competition."<< Does Cadillac compete w/ audi? Jan-Jun '08 Audi : 45,711 Jan-Jun '08 Cadi : 88,709 But here we are in smk-land {shudder}: basing "success" on sales numbers. Success in business is generally determined by profit, not volume per say. How in the world does ferrari manage to crank out so many different models with no sales volume ??? Easy- they're grotesquely overpriced for what you get = profit.

Great piece. Sorry for those that are spoon-fed by whatever the media writes, but the media plays a monster part in this. We used to depend on the integrity & journalistic hunger of 'the news' to route out the sort of slimy hypocrisy detailed above- but now all we get is partisan fluff and reguritated inaccuracies. Mainstream media = worthless. Barry 'bama - >>""We can't just write a blank check to the auto industry." {'He's not going to support the bridge loan!'} 2 minutes later : "We can't allow the auto industry simply to vanish."<< {'He IS going to support the bridge loan!'}"<< Snake Oyl Salesmanship 101 : talk out of both sides of your mouth so nearly everyone can interpret it every which way but loose.

Nothin' like tellin' it like it is. "intellectual, Harvard-educated, candy-assed, soft-handed bribe-takers" - Dead on the money.

>>"these were campaign promises, and will be acted on"<< Boy, have you 'blues' got a rude awakening coming !!

DE DOES have helmet law if you are under 19. DE's current compliance rate for seatbelts is 84%, or 2% over the national average. Seems pretty well embraced. DE upgraded their seat belt law to a primary offense 5 years ago in '03, so the base seat belt law is obviously older than that. Back to point: sobriety checkpoints are NOT related to the Patriot Act and they are NOT going away. The only legitimate objection to answering a few questions for 30 seconds is if you intend to drive drunk. You will spend far more time and at more occurances going thru vehicle inspection than you ever will going thru sobriety checkpoints. I think I've been thru 2 in my licensed life- BFD.

Can {cough, partisan politics, cough} actually cause blindness ? Obama is NOT going to strike down sobriety checkpoints (and if the Patriot Act is stricken, nor will it) because only drunks and the righteously obtuse oppose them, and there's not enough votes there to cater to. Do you also advocate to your superiors, the removal of all automotive seatbelts because they're 'freedom restrictors' ?? >>"Just standing up for my individual rights as a US citizen..."<< You do not have the "right" to have a driver's license nor operate a motor vehicle. The police / the court DOES have the right to pull your license if you disobey the laws you were granted your license under in the name of public safety.

Listening to an interesting account on oil elsewhere...... question: What was gas in CA in Oct of '07 ??