balthazar

Agreed- the opinions are flying wild over one of the worst spy shots I've seen in recent years.

If (any Asian brand) did (announce full discontinuance of all global production) I'd buy one (to flip in 40 years as a potential collectible).

Yeah- some fantas-gasmic names there, all right, all right !! The vehicle designs themselves suck & suck hard, but whoopie$h! for the names, making it all right, right ?? I'll never understand such bubbling enthusiasm for whatever God-awful POS that comes from anywhere else but here.

>>"LOL. That's classic. I think I've worn jeans/shorts, a $6 tourist t-shirt and sandals every time I've gone. I'll be on the lookout for some overdressed people "on the make.""<< Just to clarify- I'm a self-employeed contractor, I wear clothes until their practically illegal or simply fall apart. Yesterday I had decent shorts but a $1 t-shirt (military surplus), and both work boots are cracked completely thru on the soles- they are my 'dry day' pair. I don't go 'on the street' this way and I guarantee you compared to what I wear, you get 'gussied up'. :wink:

Dude, YOU were the one who trotted out an unsubstatiated "rental-queen" charge against the LaCrosse based solely on an always-misleading percentage figure, and once it was pointed out that there are 4 times the amount of rental camrys out there, you suddenly want to "get real" and shift ground to talk about completely unrelated retail sales. You know, you could've just ended it gracefully by admitting your initial charge wasn't exactly accurate instead of doin' the twist to heap more hate on Buick / more love on toyota.

The only merit in discussing whether Car X should or should not be on The List is if you are willing to substitute this guy/guys opinion over your own. Lists based totally on subjective opinion are pointless ego-strokes. That said, the inclusion of the fiat & the citroen on anyone's list involving the idea of beauty is a friggin laugh-riot.

'60 Impala, '41?-47 Chevy truck Just perhaps more than you wanted to know: http://groups.msn.com/TheCreepersTruck/thetruck1.msnw

I'm scouting out decent bridge abutments, after building my own coffin and once I get near having to rely on others for everyday tasks, it's gas me up and let's see the far side of 100 MPH. How's that for a last item on a bucket list?

No prob- was out of town. It was my manner of interpretation - when talking about engine commonality, a transmission doesn't enter into the discussion IMO. Still > "good bit" = transmission bolt patterns (BOP only), alternators and.... carbs. Would radiators be included? Doesn't fit the assessment, IMO. The only reason I dwell on this is, to the unwashed, the implication suggests that mass sharing is all GM has EVER done... and this gets extrapolated from the '70s and later, back to 1908, and widens to include 'platforms' (anachronistic term RE this era), engines, etc, etc. I hate to see that happen. I've read on vintage forums, people asking which Impala frame would work best under their 88 (as a bolt-in); it's assumed everything... ALWAYS interchanged when in fact for the bulk of 80 years, most stuff didn't. Makes me bristle.

>>"the vision of some nasty dirty old rust barge lends itself to the vision of terrifying some eco-weenie in a Smart."<< Wanna borrow this? It's 7.5 feet tall. Should do the job.

>>"I cannot imagine what cars will be like in another 50 years!"<< I can guarantee you one thing- there won't be anything CLOSE to the degree of change between 1957 and 2008. A few more airbags, laser turn signals, automatically-polarizing glass and the 20th generation of the continual morphing of music hardware is about all I would expect, and none of that ilk is particularly stirring.

>>"sadly, pontiac has nothing to offer than couldn't easily be moved to another brand. pathetic really when you think of it."<< Sadly, pontiac has much more to offer than merely things that could easily be moved to another brand. Pathetic, really, when you think of it.

No; it's exactly the story for today and this thread. Guy was asking for reunion stories; get to it.

LaCrosse - 4,546 units Camry - 17,013 units camry = rental queen. Done.

No coffee here, ever. No time to sit (well: to gussy up, drive somewhere & sit) and ponder the inadequecies of my life, either.

Right, Camino- 'cept the '54 Cadillac El Camino wasn't a pick-up (in case others didn't know that). Original '53 LeMans had dual headlights and a much more domed hood- this #4 LeMans was restyled with quads and a pancaked hood & 'Eldo' fins by GM Styling in '59. '53 Parisienne was a bit of a throwback in that it was a Town Car (uncovered driver's compartment); GM also built a '56 Eldorado Brougham Town Car. Agreed 68; having to put the top up on a convert is a 'dealbreaker' for me. Which is why you like never see the '51 LeSabre or the Y-Job with the tops up.

>>"GM V8s in the '80s tended to be pretty low on power, IIRC."<< Very nice of you to... again.. make an effort to point out just GM's past deficiencies as if they were alone in this era... but bear in mind the '80 were universally sucky- this is when a ferrari struggled to pull a 15-sec 1/4 mile.

>>"Buick had a 455 {Pontiac had a 455} and Olds had a 455. Buick, Olds, Chevy, and Pontiac all had 350s. Did all of these engines have dramatically different personalities? For example, why did the Chevy 350 survive while the Rocket, almost nearly as well renowned, was canceled in 1990 and Pontiac's and Buick's 350s canceled much earlier. I can understand the reasoning behind wanting just one common V8 engine design, but what I'm asking is why one of them won out over the other. "<< To start off, yes: the BOP 455s were unique and definately did have different personalities. I don't know that'd I'd call them 'dramatically' so, but there were distinctions aplenty down to exhaust sound. Traditionally, the division's proprietory engines were built in separate plants, so undoubtedly production capacity played a major role --in addition to the pros/cons of each engine-- in determing which engine would continue to be built in the face of corporate consolidation. Chevy got the nod for the SB V-8, Buick got the V-6 (back) and Pontiac got the 4-cyl. BTW: this for me is the 'beginning of the Great Downturn' over anything else. >>"I'd want a Buick 455 over a Rocket 455 because of the torque, but then I'd have to watch out for intake manifold problems."<< Not a real problem there. >>"They were all different, but BOP (Buick, Olds,Pontiac) had alot of commonality."<< No; there was very little interchange going on... in the case of the big displacement motors... umm, none that comes readily to mind beyond clear-cut bolt-ons like carbs. But intakes, heads, pistons, rod, cranks, pans, timing covers, exhaust-- all proprietory. >>"But here's an example where Chevy had the advantage. Chevy's big blocks (the mark IV engines) tended to breathe better than the BOP 455s. One other tidbit: the BOP 455s were not technically big blocks at all, their external dimensions were the same as the smaller displacement engines whereas the Chevy big and small block engines had little to no commonality."<< Only Pontiac's blocks were the same size externally; Buick & Olds had definate small- and big-blocks. And if it's not apparent; a division must have one in order to have the other... therefore relegating Pontiac to having... neither (Pontiac technoids often refer to them as 'mid-blocks'). And Chevy engines tended to 'breathe better' if you only looked at intake flow #s, but Buick's flow ratios were much better than Chevy BBs and equal to the SBs. Pontiac V-8 ratios were also superior to Chevy's BBs... where the track differences came into play were factory & aftermarket parts support. Strong Pontiac & Buick V-8 aftermarkets have only come online in the last 10 years. >>"While all of the divisions used TH350 and TH400 automatic transmissions, the mounting bolt patterns were different. So, you could not use a TH400 from a GTO in your SS 396 Chevelle when you blew the trans at the track. "<< Yeah- Chevys & Cadillacs had their own bolt patterns, but BOPs did interchange.

>>"Were those Firebirds Pontiacs or generic GMs?"<< Firebirds pictured at the link were not Pontiacs... as is the case for the '51 LeSabre- likewise not a Buick. >>"Why were a couple of the cars, including the '55 Chevrolet Biscayne, seemingly unrestored? (Are they new additions to the Motorama collection, or did money run out there, too?)"<< Biscayne & LaSalle II are privately owned (as are a number of others pictured, FuturLiner, Wildcat I)- Biscayne work only recently began- car was found in late '80s in... IIRC... 8 major pieces. I had expected it would be done by now, but these things (complete restorations) take mucho time & money. Looks fantastic compared to 1989. >>"A Cadillac, rather than Pontiac, LeMans? (So there might have been a precedent for calling the Pontiac G8 ST an "El Camino"?)"<< I would not call that a precedent, no. Cadillac LeMans was not production (4 built), Chevy El Camino had decades as a production Chevy.

>>"it seems GM's midsizers have always been focused with competing with other GM brands, rather than non-GM competition.. "<< Disagree- GM has always been focused on competing with other U.S. brands, rather than international brands as they should, but there's been very little focused inter-corporate competition.

4 lines? No coupes, no wagons, no converts (XLR) ?? BMW has 9 lines plus more coming.

>>"You do know why many cars are odd? I read an article awhile back on current design, expecially in cars. Ugly IS in. People actually like expressing themselves through offbeat odd design...it's reverse chic if you will. So this is not all a mistake...it's calculated. Nothing else can explain design like the horrid new Acuras. "<< I believe it's something else entirely. We have reached a true impasse' in car design; no longer is there extraneous space to work in whatever manner desired (what pops to mind at this moment: the blade front fenders of the '66 Toronado) . Modern cars are shrink-wrapped very tightly. Add to that safety requirements (bumper, pedestrian impact specs, etc) AND aerodynamics neccessary for MPG, plus the fact that the global energy situation is pushing cars to be smaller & smaller & smaller, and you have mandated homogenization. Look: every single car has a steeply-raked, flush, bonded windshield, twin roof 'rain channels', flush side & rear glass and a 'football' profile. The only thing different between 2 is the outline shape of the side glass and the thin trim that may be around it. With aero in mind, will this ever change?? Windshields are not going to go back to being more upright, there is really no room any longer (never mind stylistics) for wrapped glass.... this is it, I firmly believe. The roofs are tight, slick, aerodynamically unobtrusive..... and this is the way they will stay as long as those influences remain. The only thing I can see happening is MORE regulation that would require some degree of bulkiness/ reinforcement, maybe raising the roofs some, otherwise; we're all done there. Take stock of the rear bumpers on modern cars. Of course there all IMP and body-colored, and they 'fit in' with the lines of the rear fascia. Every trunklid wraps down to the rear bumper ("for lift-over ease"), 90% have a 'minivan indent' where the trunklid angles either straight down or is backcut from the bumper. ALL SUVs, ALL minivans, ALL cars feature a decklid opening down to the bumper: there is but 1 car on the road today that bucks this, and the review-whiners be damned - the Dodge Challenger put style over ease-of-use and does NOT wrap the deck opening all the way down to the rear bumper & instead runs full-width taillights across the rear. Can't you feel that cooling, refreshing breeze blowing??? As students of auto design, retro-esque cues or not, we should all be dancing in the streets over this single feature- God bless Chrysler! And, for me at least, the rest of the car is the same thing. Bodies are tighty wrapped and small; not only don't stylistic sweeping gestures play well on small cars (see my sig quote from one Bill Mitchell), there's no room for them anyway and CAFE, NHTSA, aero, FedReg, etc won't permit much else. Take the front fenders off 15 cars, toss them on the ground and there's almost no identity to them- the sheetmetal on same-class modern cars does no 'talking' as far as ID is concerned- all of a car's look, image/ ID is wrapped up in tiny grille (ahem- notinthecaseofthenewacuras!) and the lights. All hoods are pitched downward, all headlights are integral and flush (ahem- accord, FX)... one could barely feel out one's own car in a midnight parking lot, nevermind tell the difference between others. Bottom line : many cars will 'get ugly' because there is little left to physically change except the details (grilles, bumpers, lights), and once most of the decent ideas are gone thru, those that are less pleasing will be forced to move into rotation merely to serve the cause of 'change'. To me, modern car design is not unlike a can of soda : we've gone thru the screw-cap, bi-metal, crimped edge, the pull-top, slightly different shapes, the 'stackable base' but now the can itself is done... only thing that will change is the label, and some will naturally look less appealing than others. This doesn't mean that a few designs will not appear dynamic and actually new and look terrific, but the the bulk will have to scrabble around in the bottom of the barrel. Close the book.

I got this letter, too ('04 Silverado 2500HD). My dealer had told me prior that he had heard of some issues with speedos. In my case, only 1 time, all gauges zerod while I was driving. I pulled over, shut it off, restarted, and nothing else has happened. I'm considering joining the class action; I've not had my speedo looked at yet. And electronics was supposed to be a move forward, to eliminate the 'problems' of a mechanical speedo...

You missed my point- smk was complaining about extraneous badging and packages. M3-model's bodywork is extraneous- no performance benefit from having it. In other words, the superfluous was added, instead of the car beig sold on the merits of it's hardware alone (engine, suspension). Just relating apples to apples for him.

>>"Why can't they sell a vehicle on merit, rather than on SS, XFE, Super, special edition, $3500 cash back, $179 a month lease etc. ..."<< This is how everyone does it, welcome to the industry. Lookit bmw- instead of making the hi-HP motor an option, not only do they give it a lame-ass badgefest of 'M's, but the car gets whalloped with fake scoops & bloated air dam bumpers and tacky , shaky exhaust tips and 'powerdome' hoods- none of which make a single solitary contribution to performance, which is what the model is supposed to be all about. At the same time, while still calling out 'Injected' on every vehicle's badge like it's 1975, having 4-WD is a yet another separate model! But that's what buyers want- lame stuff and a plethora of badges. You know, like 19 speakers and 10-way power seats- chinsy junk.