balthazar

>>"From when CFCs were targeted in the late 1980s until now, the hole in the ozone layer trended toward closing--optimistic predictions said around 2050. Is that just a strange coincidence?"<< >>"this marked acceleration perfectly coincides with the onset of the industrial revolution."<< Again- where is the proof? 'Coinciding' is not scientific proof, it's an assumption. Is it unreasonable to request facts of Science? BTW- the ozonelayer/CFC scenario is almost as riddled with questionable claims and theories as global warming. Levels of UV-B radiation (screened by ozone) reaching Earth has been trending downward for the last 60 years. Chlorine (a component of CFCs) is blamed for the ozone issue, yet the world's ocean's emit on the order of 80,000 times the levels of chlorine than CFCs did before being checked. What were the status's of international patent rights to CFC production circa 1990?? Follow the money...

>>"even though some folks may only be spending another 100 bucks per car per month for gas, its a disproportionate increase vs. other expenses.... also, 100/mo/car = 2400 bucks that is better spent on luxury items or debt reduction, etc. 2400 pissed away with nothing to show."<< 12,000 miles/yr = 1000 miles / mnth. Divided by 20 MPG = 50 gallons / mnth. Last year : $150, this year : $200. That's $50/car/mnth, not "only $100". Sure: some are paying more, and some are paying less- depends on MPG & miles driven. $100/car/month = $1200/year, not $2400. But on average were looking at $50/car/month, or $600/yr. Let's at least get the math straight so we can focus on being hysterical.

Well, if you can't measure it (like I said), how do you know it's NOT zero ?

Aren't both volume & marketshare well down from the 2000 announcement of the discontinuation of Olds ?

>>"...I have seen Goodyear sell off their oil pipe line, Aerospace, Belt and hose, Chemical and other divisions. This was a sad day but if it was not done Goodyear would have been gone altogher. Today Goodyear is back to it's core and making money."<< Just pointing out RE your example: Pontiac & GMC, etc ARE GM's core. GM has already 'reverse-diversified' (Hughes, EDS, Euclid, Terex, ElectroMotive, GMAC, etc). If Goodyear did what GM is supposedly considering, it would be discontinuing/ selling off 60% of it's lines of tires.

>>"...and thus avoid being slapped with import tariffs and taxes..."<< What import tariffs & taxes ??? As it has been forever to me: an American car is a car built by an American company. Of course, there's a fetid double-standard: foreign car fans are ever-quick to generalize about -say- 'lack of American quality' or 'typical for an American car', yet overlook all the foreign product slapped together on our soil. No one considers a mercedes or bmw built here to be 'American', yet a Chevy built in Mexico is pointed out incessantly as something 'wrong'.

Well guess what: there definately are people who seriously believe humans cannot have a measurable effect on climate change- a lot of them. I not heard that even a single point of "proof" has been unilaterally agreed apon, either.

Straight from the Senseless Ginsu School of Design. No Way.

No; I'm talking about the panic of today vs. the acceptance of 1 year ago. Sure- no one wants to pay more for anything, and yes, it'll likely climb in the future, but the people who are increasingly running out of fuel on the highway because they 'can't afford to fill up' are not smart enough to plan long-term... ie; they're not selling now because fuel might be higher in the future.

Anyone with any logical or analytical mind should be able to calculate this. Gas is right about $1.00 more a gallon than 1 year ago. On the usual average of 12,000 miles/yr, even at -say- 15 mpg- that's only $800 more a yr to drive than 1 year ago, when we really weren't hearing quarterly-hour reports on the price of gas/ a barrel & no one was bitching. People waste $800 in a snap- 'upgrading' with appliances, electronics, furniture, toys, food, etc etc etc. In these areas, they want it, so the expenditure is 'justified' and never given a moment's thought. But gas is needed, so somehow any increases there are a personal affront and loosing tens of thousands in a run on trade-ins in the media/mass hysteria somehow makes some sort of sense. Possilbe scenario: I 'need' to go from 15 MPG to 23. I sell my truck and lose $15K, buy a new compact that doesn't fit my needs, spend $23K there, but now I'm happy because I'm 'saving' $1100 a year in gas, even tho I 'spent $38,000 to do so. In 34 years I'll actually break even on that deal. Stupid, but happy.

WOW! No- don't have that one.

>>"I don't see why they just don't put the Titan out of its misery. 1200 sales a month is hardly enough to justify its existence..."<< Fine with me; might as well flush the Xterra (1,206), Pathfinder (1,436) and Armada (866 !!) while they're at it.

AF did work for numerous marques; Merc for 8 years in the early '50s, Buick in the mid '50s, but was exclusive to Pontiac from '59 thru at least '71. HE- what year Tempest are you thinking it was?

Yeah- it's a mess.

Good links, HE. Was looking at a flawless '62 GP (the below is a Bonne) at a small show yesterday (I know '60s PMDs intimately)- every bit as beautiful as the ads, just a smidge narrower. And this is the ad I mentioned earlier (sorry: a 4-dr sedan, not a wagon) - you can't make out the rain drops here, but in print it's amazing.

I have most of his ads in my files- there's one for a '62 wagon and all the chrome is beaded with rain- insane. In addition to being a fantastic artist, know that Pontiacs really did look this good in the '60s; they made it a bit easier for AF (& VK) :

So nicely put & heartfelt, CD; the camera was turned around on you this time. So many of this generation going home these days- care to tell a bit about what she did work/hobby-wise, esp earlier on? There's always aspects worthy of admiration, even for a stranger, for the times they went thru and the differences they saw. RIP, ID.

The truck is prolly OK as far as the general consensus goes, to hot rod. If you could make the Packard hold together to rod, it deserves to be restored, even a 120 sedan. I, too, love Hudsons, one was almost my first car ('50 Pacemaker Brougham 2-dr sedan - scared off by the UB frame rot). pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics-pics.....

>>"I don't think there is relevance for GMC in the consumer market right now or in the forseeable future. I know there are people on this forum who feel GMC is differentiated enough from Chevy, but unfortunately, I don't think enough of the car-buying public agrees."<< 1 year ago the car-buying public was buying more more-expensive GMC trucks than the "identical" Chevrolets, than toyots was able to come fractionally close to with something like double the incentives. If GMC is not resonating with consumers, the turdra should already be pushing up daisies. GMC was closing in on six hundred thousand units annually, the #2 GM volume division and pure profit. The theory that there's something wrong with the brand's image/perception just doesn't hold up to reality. Now.. if GMC wasn't able to sell -say- even 100K units this year.... I'd certainly consider the point. But even 100K units all at a profit is better than zero. I've advocated GMC turning to a majority of commercial veh. and having HD versions & the trucks over 3/4-ton, while Chevy can have the 1/2-tonners and people movers... for a long long time. I ALSO like the idea that GMC could be sold at any GM dealer- the name so nicely lends itself to that.

>>"Can someone be 100% politically correct on a bulletin board such as this?"<< Possibly, but why bother?

I like how you sidestep saying what it is. Not really; WTF is it? Bottom line from my POV is, if it's so bad no one else would attempt to bring it back, you have carte blanche to do whatever you can dream up. Rarity does not always equal value, of course (see Rambler collector values (in general))... but if it IS of historic significance AND?OR valuable, I'd hesitate. WTF is it, again?- I forgot. But if the original chassis is long gone and it's >>this<< rare, how would you ever accumulate enough to make it original... or are you still going for 'original-looking' only? One more time; what is it again?

You guys KNOW I know what an X-body Ventura is, I wasn't questioning what it was, just why der borger bothered to post it. BTW- I always loved the Pontiac Turbo wheels- Pontiac may have the nicest historical catalog of wheels of all: 8-lugs (so yummy) and the stillborn Tempest 8-lug, Rallye Is & IIs, Snowflakes, Turbo wheels, many great-looking rims in the '80s & '90s...

This is like leaking next year's chicken egg pic. BMW stylistic changes move at a glacial pace, there is no anticipation by anyone of anything remotely surprising. The Banglization was ONLY somewhat surprising in light of decades of zero styling changes prior.

>>"What? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?"<< Just pointing out the fallibility of percentages. "74%" sounds horrible, of course, (and it is), esp in comparison to "29%". The stock price was compared to toyota & Ford above, but from the standpoint of an individual investor and told in actual dollars, if you bought the same # of shares of GM & toyo, you would have lost more money investing in toyota over the last year than in GM. >>" Of course the higher priced stock will have higher absolute fluctuation with a percentage change"<< Depends on the percentage...

Not hating, just stateing : >>"In 1929, Oldsmobile introduced the first monoblock V8 on its Viking model."<< Intersting wording: Viking was not a model of Oldsmobile, but a separate marque organizationally linked with Olds. These were NEVER "Oldsmobile Viking"s. IMO I would have to award this innovation to Viking, not Olds. Pontiac had it's own factory in it's 2nd year- did it's own engineering separate from Oakland. LaSalles likewise had their own engineering/engines- not Cadillac's. Not positive how autonomous Viking was from Olds, but I assume the siutaion was similar to the above. >>"In 1940, Oldsmobile introduced "Hydra-matic Drive," the first fully automatic transmission to be offered on a widely-available automobile."<< Olds introduced it, but Cadillac did all the engineering on the unit, started working on it in 1932. It was given to Olds for field testing & production in order to shield Cadillac from any possible shortcomings/image problems associated with unreliability (there were none). Here again, as far an an innovation goes, I'd without question give it to Cadillac.