balthazar

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.

>>"The bumpers are quite clearly from a Bonneville."<< Does not match google image results for '97, '98 or '99 Bonnevilles (SE or SSE) - too many contours are cleary different. I see why one would think that, but the pics do not support the claim. >>"Brand recognition...a few people recognize a name like Packard."<< Something worth doing, is worth doing right. If only a few people recognize 'Packard', just choose something else. You know the chinese would only F the effort up and just stomp on any remaining cache the name has left with vehicle consumers... just make something else up... like : Chevy > Chery.... Packard > Packry.

If so, I condemn those that would license a name such as Packard to a chinese or indian entity- they are incapable of doing the name justice and have no basis of understanding to even try. And if one questions why such a basis is neccessary, I counter-question, why use the name in the first place?

No, I don't. I also don't think 'triple-redundancy' is anywhere close to cost-effective, nor will it be locally-welcomed. Municipalities will fight 'backyard' wind farms tooth & nail- mark my words. These are the same self-centered, short-sighted whack-a-do's that hypocritically moan about dependance on foreign oil, yet are doing nothing individually to reduce their own consumption and everything to oppose these very solutions. >>"And in the event that the wind stops blowing across the entire country for a day, there are still coal and nuke plants out there."<< Exactly my point... except that the self-proclaimed next president has already come out against more coal mining or more reactors. I haven't heard of back-up generators that can run on coal, either... plus shipping it across country to stockpile individual wind farms grids will require..... a new source of diesel consumption. Add to that, not only the wind speed reaching zero scenario, but what of too weak winds to supply demand (expected to grow... what was it; 30% by 2015?)? There's no free lunch, it's often said ('cept, perhaps, at Costco).

>>"Oddly enough I went on there recently to see a list of movies our Mercedes 500SEC hardtop has bbeen in, along with it's 380 & 560 near-twins, but I found NOT one in my search."<< Hm-mmm... not celluloid-worthy?

One of the last all-the-marbles period at Cadillac was the early-mid '60s, when the Division toyed with reintroducing the V-16 (they built 5 running protoype engines, too). One of the most interesting sketches from that period is a long, low 2-seat roadster with 16 induction pipes poking discretely thru the hood, with a pointed boattail-esque rear, tho there were also numerous razor-edges ala the '67 'E'. I first saw it years and years ago and have always liked it. Here it is, the Cyclone!

I would not classify trucks / SUVs as "easy" to roll in the least. Easier that cars, but they are also wider & longer- that adds stability. They are also driven less recklessly that cars, on average. I would be surprised if cars are also not the focus of the 2010 standard as well as trucks.

Yeah; cover everything behind the door and it screams Corvette (tho it's an obscured sketch, to be sure). Not jiving with the rear that much, nor the quarter glass shape. You'd think with cars this compact, manufacturers -esp pie-in-the-sky-price brands- could reduce the plethora of panel seams... but it seems to be impossible at any price level.

Well, it's been done before, and more than once (Alison V-12 in a custom car). IIRC, the Quad A1 had FOUR. Design is an OBVIOUS take-off (yet another in a long list) of the infinitely-inspirational '51 GM LeSabre. Car above, visually, does nothing for me.

Car is extremely impressive on the spec sheet. Chassis is custom- all aluminum, body's all aluminum, V-12 is all aluminum. For a big, real full-size, AWD V-12 car, the reported weight of 3750 is amazing. IIRC- it's all custom built- not a heavy modification of anything else. Sorry, kick-'em-when-they're-down-ers. I don't care for the '48-esque body cues at all, and the rubber bumper ruins it for me. But for a 'resurrection' effort, a LOT of time, money & thought went into this. Pity it didn't go further... but in these days, without corporate backing, it's pretty much impossible.

>>"realistically free trade is only a good thing for us, if we export more then we import, "<< Fallacy : if the world was entirely 'good thing free trade', this would be the trade equivalent of an MC Eisher painting. Some countries HAVE to import more than they export - on a dollar-dollar basis- it's imposible not to. >>"$168 billion would buy enough of the big wind generators to power every household in America...... three times."<< Fallacy : Wind turbines are never guaranteed to spin 100% of the time any practical place in the world. Available designs have no battery systems. Thus- to avoid brown- and black-outs, backup systems are required..... that would be fossil-fuel backups, currently. Suddenly, companies and individuals all over the world are stocking reserve oil tanks. Demand = ^.

The question remains, MM, will convertibles 'go away' after 2010 ?? How can they possibly be exempted if saftey is the primary motivator in new roll-over standards ? 2.5x vehicle weight is an awful stiff requirement, too- I can see 1.5 maybe. Good point about pillar angle- it's been patently obvious to me for years that the severly-raked A-pillar is the weak point in modern rooflines. I wonder if greenhouse lines similar to 1930s cars are going to have to return?

I hear you about Darrin- tho I have not studied his work much. There definately was some measruable grace lacking in the K-D. And I too, could never get past that grille- so unnatural.

>>"...to build something like that out of a '69 would be more like $50k, not $30k."<< No way. Oh; you can spend that much, and obviously the tip-in price of the '69 can vary wildly, but it doesn't cost 10s of thousands to make a '69 Camaro handle like a new car. >>"I said that a newer car would handle better than an older car. And I'm talking stock, not with $15,000-30,000 worth of work and parts added on to make it handle like that."<< You don't think there's thousand's of dollars in the suspension of a new car? How about you take 2 cars, 1 vintage & 1 new (of the same type), spend the same amount of money, and be surprised how close the 2 turn out. Or... put the same suspensions under the same cars and see how they handle vs, each other. People dismiss vintage stuff routinely as if the suspension design was fundamentally different than modern cars. Sure- if we're talking '30s or '40s, but since the '50s, the fundamentals have remained largely the same. Case in point: '59 Buick: FRT- forged 'tubular' lower A-Arm, stamped steel uppers, coil over shocks, threaded bushings, ball joints, 12" aluminum brakes. MID: driveshaft loop. RR: coils, Panhard bar, live axle, 12" brakes. Except for IRS, not much different from many 'modern' cars, plus a few extras. You think with $2500 I can't run with a G8 ?? Wanna bet?

Was over my buddy's house today - he has a '56 Bel Air 2-dr hardtop, 350, white over black, decent driver, '67 Malibu 2-dr hardtop, 350, black (vinyl) over blue, solid, needs everything, '71 Monte Carlo hardtop, 402, black (vinyl) over white, show condition, '02 Camaro SS convert, 350, burnt orange, mint, '08 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab 4x4, 5.3, light grey. He has some sort of Chevy disease, but he's still my bud.

>>"-Not really feeling the Vagabond/Traveler so much. It's the first American hatchback. Hatchbacks are trash. ...if you like them, then more for you! I wouldn't be caught dead in one."<< Oh- I didn't say I wished to own one, either, but if you ever have the chance to inspect one, to open the rear panels and see that large, flat, wooden cargo bed with raised contrasting strips & the fold-down rear seat hiding inside... not even thinking about the fact that this is the first of the type, a sort of truck inside a car, it's still really quite a striking bit of thinking & engineering overall. The one I was eyeballing was on death's doorstep (since been crushed), but it must be even more impressive restored. The outside is still B.O.R.I.N.G. Again- I'm struggling here to fit Kaiser to 68's description of a 'wild-product' manufacturer. >>"-I stick by my assessment of the Kaiser Darrin. It's garbage and that's all there is to it. Your Hudson Italia, as goofy as it may look, is still a hundred times better-looking and a million times better mechanically than a Kaiser Darrin could ever dream of being; I dunno how you could even compare the two. I bet a lot more than 25 would have sold if Hudson didn't come out with them when they were already bankrupt (they were already in talks to merge with Nash for 1954). So what if the Italia was built on the Jet chassis? The Jet might as well be a Cadillac compared to a Henry J. All of the Jets came with a very formidable 202 inline six; you could even get Twin-H Power on a Jet if you wanted. It was no Hornet, but it also wasn't even a tenth of the &#036;h&#33;box a Henry J was. The only Kaiser Darrins that ever saw a decent powerplant and mechanicals, as I mentioned before, were the ones that Howard Darrin bought and had retrofitted himself to save face after he realized he put his name on complete and utter crap. Add in the car's butt-ugly design; that stupid little grille, those retarded bulbous taillights, the useless sliding doors that anybody older than seven would have trouble fitting through, and the faggy little half-top with the queer miniature landau bars, and you've got yourself one incredible piece of &#036;h&#33;. I don't think I could ever be convinced otherwise."<< And I'm not trying to do so. The Darrin isn't a beautiful design, but it doesn't get a great quantity of allocades, either; I feel it fits in history's rearview mirror pretty well as it does, if you get me. I cannot vouch for nor contest your assessment of the K-D - I've yet to inspect one up close, nevermind ride in one. But you must not be as familiar with the Jet- it fits most of the tone of your description for the K-D- generally wretched. Giving credit to the Jet's Twin-H Power is like giving credit to a 305 CI Chevy "SS". The Italia was a beautiful design IMO, full of funky details and really radical thinking. I only compared the Italia to the K-D because the similarities are impossible to ignore : same-era last-gasp sports cars on econoturd chassis's from independants... that flopped.

Agreed. Does the Gov pay postage?? The Treasury sent out letters (another mass mailing) to tell everyone 'the check is in the mail'. Double postage (if applicable). On the other hand, some considerable percentage of those checks was for 'multiple payments' (ie: I got $1800).

68- >>"...you of all people Balthy I woud think would respect a manufacturere going against the grain... putting WILD designs into production and taking risks, rather than staying safe & mild."<< And I would. Know of any Kaiser designs that fit that description that I don't? XP-715- >>"The only good thing I can say about Kaiser-Frazer is that it was cool that they were one of the few automobile manufacturers to offer a convertible sedan after the Second World War. Other than that, they have zero redeeming qualities."<< And there you have it. All right...: In a nutshell- Kaiser had the convertible sedan... But in an -oh-so-wrong twist of evil fate- the B-Pillar (and here- it was actually a pane of glass)..... was..... (hope you're sitting down).... FIXED !!!!! Door glass was framed, also. And you thought it was just a wacky coincidence that every single picture of one, including the factory ad art, showed the side glass always up. That, and the overall design was doudy at best. The Vagabond / Traveller cars WERE unique and practical. I love these.... but... the design was doudy at best. The Darrin doesn't bother me in the least. It was no Corvette of course, but it was miles closer to the Corvette than the DeLuxe was to the Bel Air. >>"What a worthless pile of &#036;h&#33;!"<< Eh- it's not for me, but it certainly doesn't warrant that level of ire, IMO. One of my most beloved '50s cars, the Hudson Italia, also was built on the econoturd chassis (Jet)- but that doesn't diminish the design one iota, IMO. The '53 Dragon / redesign was pretty cool, was looking at one this spring. Greenhouse was still too tall, but it was pretty snarky otherwise. Now if only there had been some meat under the hood. These are it for me for Kaiser- the Vagabond / Traveler, the Darrin, and the '53-54s. I don't find the convert anything to spent time thinking about because of the ultimate cost-cutting : framed glass & a B-Pillar.

Back when the Camaro concept was the only thing to go on, and numerous threads twisted into a sedan vs hardtop discussion.... I asked pointedly for hard data RE hardtop construction cost. No one had even ballpark figures to offer. The entire hardtop issue (well-responded to by more than 1 in this thread, but esp XP-715) is exactly like the HP issue- who needs 400, 500 or more HP? Cars that go 180-200 MPH in a land that doesn't allow more than 65 in severely-limited areas? For what, in the eyes of the Safety Nazis? The cost of hardtop has to be negligable, and regardless- those that want it will pay for it. The safety issue is moot, because there are far more dangerous vehicles to ride in, that are perfectly legal. The fact remains, offering the Camaro as one (and perhaps later, a few others) would be an excellent segment exclusive with only positive image results for GM. So bring it, already.

>>"Long known for building gas guzzling powerful engines..."<< It was NOT known for building "gas guzzling" engines. It was known as the administrative & assembly headquarters for Buick Motor Division for, like, 80-some years, in addition to building millions of engines. >>"..., Flint’s turbulent relationship with GM was the subject of the scathing Michael Moore slander-piece Roger and Me."<< Fixed.

There is no 'light at the other end' because whatever benefits that MAY get passed (tax credits, billions of aid) will only be taken out of you from another source. In fact, what I see coming as far as overall individual economic well-being is the 'darkness at the other end' due to the sheer volume of proposed new spending. I am already doing what I can to prepare now...