balthazar

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.

I'd like to see a number of extended deck phantoms, either close-coupled or true coupes. '58 or '60 Series 62 or a '64 GP. Picture a 2-dr hardtop '60 Cadillac, but with no rear seat & the backlight moved up 2 feet. Love the short hood / long deck look... ie:

The GM divisions toyed around with numerous 4-dr convertibles. ^ '66 Chevy Caribe', XP-834. Same name, different take - how many had heard of the '68 Camaro Caribe' : I hadn't. SO MUCH GM history trickling thru the cracks over the years........ :mad:

And how does sales volume have anything to do with judging the 2 actual cars vs. each other??

>>"Equinox, BRX, 9-4X, Terrain should all come in at 4000 pounds in AWD trim if GM knows what they are doing, but I predict closer to 4500."<< BMW x6 AWD (192", 66" tall) weighs 5300. What a bloated pig. Guess they really don't know what they're doing. >>"A Vue V6 awd is heavier than the current SRX..."<< Vue AWD is listed as a separate model- 3.5L AWD (180") weighs 4325. RWD V6 model weighs 4076. AWD does not determine an SRX model- it is an option, therefore, all SRX (195") weights are listed in RWD configuration, and there it weighs 4164, or MORE, not less.

>>"Need pics of that '65 vert Camino! "<< Close: \ -- -- -- -- -- -- "XP-725 : Special hardtop coupe/ sedan/ convertible station wagon" Ummm... WHAT?!?!

It certainly is a hot lil' coupe. Love the center exhaust- think it'll be maddingly and inexplicably 2" off-center like BMW used to consistantly do? Nah, I don't think so either. Also refreshing to see it's not a simple '4-door sedan w/ 2 doors', like the stuffy 3-series 2-dr. Yep- bummed it's not a hardtop, guess I shouldn't ever expect to see one from GM again if this isn't going to be one. Wouldn't come anywhere near close to being a deal-breaker for me, tho, were I in the market.

>>"...maybe two of those motors on a common crank..."<< A lil' JB Weld and you're motorvatin' ! Just within B-59s: I love to build a 'Estate Coupe' pickup, an extended deck Electra 225 with the XP-706 double-bubble rear glass, and the XP-75 Skylark 2-seat coupe.

Ahh, you make an excellent point, grasshopper. By default (& experience), I think in RWD engineering terms. Tho they do have an..... exhaust tunnel, FWD cars' transaxles are ahead of the firewall. GM does not 'push' the fact that the DTS & Lucerne (and the rest here on Gilligan's Isle) have 'only' 4 speeds, I doubt it plays much at all w/ most consumers. I'm curious- do you think the many sedans that still 'push' 5-spds lose sales to those with 6-spd? Are people really buying cars with 'number of transmission gears' as a primary factor? Some cars have 7 or 8-spds... are the 6-spds struggling against them? This issue gets greatly overweighted, IMO. Still, it's obviously only a matter of moving a few items around- we're not talking about an Allison trans in an Aveo; there HAS to be room for the 6-spd in a DTS- it's the largest car GM builds.

And grif cleanly demonstrates the fallacy of taking full stock of 'percent' figures. Good info.

Who "worships" toyota ??? More generic, one cannot get. Fins may be the single coolest contribution to autodom... ever. Thanks, Cadillac.

Let's boil this down- the G-Body requies a larger trans tunnel & a different trans mount provision. It does not require an entire platform redesign. They choose not to do this (tho it very well may be money that's the issue). Once you put the numbers pissing match aside, GM's 4-spd auto is still butter smooth, dead reliable and completely unobtrusive. It still may pay a tiny penalty in MPG, however. I'm not a huge proponent of mega-gears due to weight/ cost/ complexity. Current GM autos go like this: 4-spd = 3-spds + 1 OD 5-spd = 4-spds + 1 OD 6-spd = 4-spds + 2 OD I have the Allison 5-spd auto in my 2500HD, excellent trans. My brother has the Allsion 6-spd in his 3500, and the shift quadrant shows which gear you're in at the touch of a button. It never goes into 6th except cruising on level highways. Ratios 1-5 are identical, but his has a lower-still OD 6th gear.... yet his transmission is supposedly 'betterer' or 'more moderner' because it has 'more'. 4T80E (DTS) -- 2.96 | 1.62 | 1.0 | .68 5L40E (CTS) -- 3.46 | 2.21 | 1.59 | 1.0 | .76 6L50E ---------- 4.02 | 2.36 | 1.53 | 1.15 | .85 | .67 That's a big ratio change, 4-spd >< 6-spd- tho pure highway mileage is not going to go up noticably with the same OD gear. Theoretically, with today's wider & flatter torque plots, all these gears are even less neccessary, but I realize it doesn't play that way in the real world. I suspect electronics play a major role there.

Chained to the grindstone is 'freedom' ??

HarleyEarl- >>"Up until about the mid fifties, you could barely tell the difference between a Pontiac and a Chevrolet. When you look at Pontiacs pre 50s, they almost look like rebadged Chevrolets. "<< PLEASE don't even suggest this !! All the detractors need is a gentle nudge to extend their 'rebadge' griping back another 2 or 3 decades. I don't have the heart to endure the wildfire bashing should such an idea gain traction. The cars are completely unique aside from a very minimal percentage of shared parts (5% ??).

This one is pretty close to me.... why-O-why couldn't it be a '58 ??? Brings back memories of Ol' Faithful- the family's '77 Catalina Safari - different gen body but same basic dash. It's far too new, and pillow-tuffed velour upholstery just doesn't do it for me. Also not nuts to see an Olds motor in there (not that Pontiac had much better to offer by '81.... tho a Turbo 301 would slip right in). I'll have to pass.

>>"This car had an economical four cylinder engine which was as tough as old boots - it simply ran and ran and ran. I've heard stories from North America, Australia and Europe of these cars running even with barely any oil in the sump. Compared to other manufacturers from America and Europe back in the 70s and 80s, nobody came close in this segment."<< Never heard of the Slant Six, huh? Nor the small-block Chevy?

Of course, now that car over 35 years old.... rubber out in the elements / atmosphere isn't guaranteed to last that long.

>>"I hate the big brake pedal you have to lift your left leg up high (I have long legs) to engage, and the hand brake usually takes up a lot of space in the console area."<< So there's no more console parking brake handle w/ EB? That's worth it right there, perhaps. Foot parking brakes are perfectly fine with me. Instead of adding needlessly complicated electronics to a simple mechanical assembly, engineers should design a system where the pedal travel is 'geared up' and thusly doesn't have to move as far. Simple and never burns out.

>>"One thing that's cool.. electronic parking brake."<< Why, exactly, is this 'cool' ?

Is it just me, or is design dead? mitsu looks like just about every other mitsu ; cheap & nasty.

>>"...I think three out of the five have leaked through the rear window, which is incredibly common for GM's from the 60's and 70's; it's the reason they all get water in the trunks and get that trademark GM rear window rot at the bottom corners as they age. "<< This is primarily an A-Body scenario. Don't forget, the A-Bodies were de-engineered from the B-Bodies- some details fell thru the cracks. None of my 7 '60s GMs had this issue.