balthazar

A face mullet.

What's so 'disasterous' about that? Certainly not awkward or weird... and basically, just about everything has these non-functional 'rear vent panes' these days; byproduct of too-short cars.

DF - I have no earthly idea what you were trying to describe above. -- -- -- -- -- I am currently driving my family nuts with this : "He's sleigh-riding now!"

No one seems able to get anyone to do anything constructive or even mildly helpful anymore. Still, I wish you success in your venture, LA.

Yes- the same features are there in the spy shot vs. the concept, but the proportions are all different. Huge difference (based on the pics). Production car had better be 95% of the concept or just forget it.

>>"SD = the famed and best motor Pontiac made, the legendary Super Duty 455, hence SD."<< No props for the 421 SD?

Well, here it is, about 1.5 years later. Still contractin', wife's still driving the '03 GP (87K?), I'm still driving a Silverado 2500HD. Have not advertised for work yet since going into this line of work in Nov of '06, currently have 6 jobs going on at once, with 2 on the front burner. Working 6 days a week every week, sometimes 7. Add to that I've been helping my wife's cousin clean out his house (no pay there, but I've been scoring a truckload of tools). There's 4 of us; me, my 2 hands and my radio. I really need a clone. Or a Guat. One good, lucrative contract and perhaps not only could I lay off on the hours, but actually work on the Buick some. Lately I've been feeling as if there's some aspect of a moral wrongdoing by not finishing this car. Look; it's almost done! :

Why am I laughing out loud... alone, infront of my computer? : Whole front clip looks like it's off another car.... another even uglier car.

>>"BMW's '94 models were not updated '68s."<< Then, that's even a more sad scenario, isn't it? Total redesigns (multiple?) to produce... the same car visually. Imagine if GM redesigned the '68 Nova multiple times in 15 years and all it came away with visually by 1994 was molded plastic bumpers ?? Oh, the knashing of teeth & the tearing of hair that would ensue !!!! Look at what we already have with the W-Body "rebadges" >>"Face it, the '90s GM products were by and large forgettable crap."<< The entire 1980s and 1990s were by & large forgettable crap. These era cars will never reach even a fraction of the collectibility or following or value of vintage American vehicles. Face it yourself.

Why do you guys quote ENTIRE lengthy posts so it appears 3 or 4 times on one page ??????????

>>"I'm not sure to whom it was a 'disappointment', ..."<< How about anyone who took a look at the interior and then learned the price ??

'toyopet' is what we here often call toyota, you know- in a derogatory, dismissive manner... not unlike someone who would take every single, solitary opportunity to dismiss a brand as existing solely to be whored out only as a rental. Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......... "totally different"? You must be high, sir. 1968: 1994: Same damned, reguritated, tired, worn-out, boring, predictable, design. This is a longer design run than the '68-82 Corvette !! 4 round lights, horizontal plastic grille, pig nostrils, bland sheetmetal (actually, at least the '68 has some interest & flair to it). Even the hood emblem is in the exact same spot, twenty-five f@#king years later. It never changes (well, until it got Bangled). I hope to hell (like I care) bmw didn't pay any sort of design staff all those years, for what ??? Sure wasn't for interior design. You still consider quad circular headlights 'modern' in 1994?? Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........

Gotcha. Would love to know --but not if it requires taxpayer money to learn it-- just what percentage of the Eco-Stim was spent on the frivolous as intended, rather that saved or used to pay bills. All mine went right back... to the tax man.

Based on the brief parameters you spelled out above, it would have to be more cost effective to modify an existing platform.... but I've often had the feeling that it goes something like this: money is appropriated for a new vehicle, and it all has to be spent or they get less next time, hence they throw everything they had right out the window and start from scratch. You know- like the government operates. It always amazes me when the wet blankets whine 'Oh, that's just an updated platform, Car A(mazing) has an all-new platform' like that's somehow measurably better automatically and it's impossible to have any bugs or deficiencies in a clean sheet platform.

No, because there it looked good and was harmonious with the rest of the monsterous car. This is a small, plasti-clad genericmobile with a vastly disproportionate amount of glimmicky chrome troweled up the front & over onto the hood like a '70s Oldsmobile (and even there it made more sense). It's wretched... hideous. The rest of the car looks extremely bloated, too, but that's besides the point. I thought you were asking people to stop being ridiculous ??

>>"They keep Avis, Enterprise, and Alamo rolling.."<< Enterprise by me is 100% nissan & toyopet. >>"What's sad is that Century in the picture was sold until 2004. A 1994 BMW or Lexus looks more modern than that. "<< a 1994 bmw looks exactly like a 1968 bmw; in other words- decades older. >>"The main thing I didn't like on the concept was the side crease, which is horribly cheap looking. "<< How are you coping with the accord's horribly cheap looking side crease?? Or are you referring to that as a scrape or dent? >>"Oshawa owns the rights to Regal and Impala"<< I struggle to think of a more absurd scenario- a location owning a trademarked name instead of the legal coporation that created it. The Buick in this awful spy shot looks awful in comparison to the awesome concept. Invisible. I do think a lot of it is the pic itself, but I'm not holding my breath on the real thing anymore.

The 'baby' rolls will undoubtedly be a disappointment as the big bus rolls is.

Hey Walt, been working in Spotswood this month (Spotswood Ave)- I always look at that big ol' house in your flicker pics when I motor by- my buddy says he knows the guy who owns it- that guy wanted to make it a car-service business but the town turned him down. Striking, looks structurally sound. If it weren't for the traffic, it'd probably be worth restoring. I'd love to get inside it.....

>>"I fear that China is our future.... As in, they'll own most of the traditional american brands someday."<< Well, the money, at least up until recently, is there, but stability & foresight is another matter. And lest anyone think I'm 'underestimating the enemy again'; I do pay particular attention to chinese-related news items and have learned to read between the liberal lines to an extent- there are real issues seemingly born of a cultural business mindset there that are self-defeating. Besides that- if the chinese come to own most of the traditional brands, I'll just take myself off the new vehicle grid completely. I'm not ever buying a chinese brand car, no matter what the name is. A new car is one of the worst 'investments' one can make and chinese products are some of the world's worst.

I doubt it - you do see that they're models, right?

I like it because it breaks the mold of headlight\grille/headlight in one horizontal plane.

Central NJ township (no real 'town center'). Suburban with urban (to my eye) overtones. Most densely populated state in the U.S.. Unfortunately close to everything. Suprisingly, loads of money in NJ (once heard that if it was it's own country, it'd be the richest in the world). Taxes are crushing. Would love to leave except my family's all here, and so is lots of work. I don't hate it, tho. Tons of cars/car people, shows all over. Great area for finding stuff- estate sales, deceased mechanics' garages, etc. Always something new coming along. Real estate values have pushed the junkyard to near extinction here, I report with great sadness and lingering fond memories. Grew up in a very rural area, tho, which I still miss and still feel at home in. At some point the taxes are going to push me out of the state... but I do not relish the thought of moving all I have accumulated over the years. Industry is continually on the wane, as it is all over the country. One good thing about NJ is, there's a good percentage of decent people / interesting characters; lots of surrounding states (ahem: NYPA) have a.... different... level.... of folk by & large. One might call some of them yahoos. Seems to be a higher percentage than in NJ, but then again- we have more snobs and self-centered know-nothings. Fair trade-off? - you make the call. Just my opinion.

Here's the '63 you referred to, moltie, an altered production car with a fastback roofline : Here's a ground-up concept V-16 I always liked : A few more pics 'n the story HERE

>>"1. Federal law says NHTSA can't regulate vehicle type of existence; means can't apply standard that no convertible can meet."<< Granted, but the NHTSA is the fed- wouldn't take much internal pressure to rewrite that law in the least. Molded headlights were once prohibited, and there was no fatality issue involving headlights. Again I must state : if the primary reason for increased rollover protection is safety / saving lives.... exempting convertibles is an obvious, undeniable disregard for convertible owner's safety / lives- regardless of their percentages. The Gov here seemingly is willing to allow those individuals to accept the risk of convertible ownership. IMO- they just cannot be bothered to look into the issue to see if any other vehicles may also fall under that category. Typical, less-than-complete job done. >>"if your hardtop was to rollover, are we concerned the roof itself is going to collapse, or the (4, instead of 6) pillars wont hold under the weight..."<< The answer is pretty much the same. The concern is that the pillars won't hold the weight, moreso than the roof panel itself. Problem is- the A-pillar is still the weak point in any design- most every vehicle is front heavy and going forward in an incident... in a rollover all the forward motion & the car's weight is often on the top of the windshield, and at the angle of the pillar, it just folds. I'm not sure a mandatory B-pillar will make all that much difference if everything forward still collapses. Look at the pic of the A-pillar in the car in my sig- dead vertical. In an article on customizing a '59, the builder could not cut thru one with a saw-zall, hacksaw or grinder, and was forced to use a cutting torch (the pillar in '59-60s is triple-layer boxed steel). I'd love to see a modern return to the wrap windshield- the pillar would be much stronger (all else equal) and visibility is VASTLY improved.

Similar- yes, the same- no.