balthazar

>>"...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.

>>"GM closed at $9.98 per share Ford closed at $4.36 per share Just for reference Toyota closed today at $91.40"<< >>"Just for reference, what was GM at a year ago?"<< >>"$38.02 July 2, 07. Ford--$9.64 then."<< Ooops; forgot toyota !! : $127.78 -- July 3, '07. GM is down 74% and actual share price decrease is $28.04. toy is down 29% but actual 'share' price decrease is $36.38. If one bought 1000 shares of both, the toyota 'stockholder' would have lost $8340 more that the GM holding. If one bought the same $ amount of shares, the GM stockholder would have lost $17199 more (on 1000 shares) than the toyota holding. Depends on your criteria of comparison. But without question; yes - Ford & GM's stock prices suck- glad for my sake I didn't buy any back when it was in the mid $30s and it was getting talked up here.

>>"You HONESTLY think the Toureg gets confused with the Cayenne? Really?"<< If the person is not any sort of car enthusiast; yes I do. Not only are the pair very obviously similar, neither is unique or remotely eye-catching. That's my take. If design has any sort of weight in this segment.... Mmmm, boy! ( ) OR:

>>"It's a look that I associate with the now misused term coupe."<< And well you should- this has one thing in common with a 2008 Corvette- both correctly identified as coupes. After enough bombardment of 'fast-n-loose' marketing RE "coupe", I am more & more pushed to embrace the strict physical definition instead. An aquaintance is picking up a '41 Plymouth 2-dr... not sure yet if it's a coupe or 2-dr sedan. I'm supposed to sell off some spare parts- this car is a driver tho. '41 Plymouth 2-drs are among my favorite period MoPars. Here's a 'shelled' one a buddy owned a few years back; I was falling in love as is, love the truncated fenders and this one had mad patina. Ain't the proportions F'in perfect?? :

An X-Body Ventura ???

I like the Denali XT generally, but in the GM video, the designer talks about 'functionality and the appearance of being a truck". Midgate aside (haven't seen/operated one in person, so I'll not pass judgement) a what-appears-to-be 4-foot bed does not induce the adjective "functional"... and maintaining the 'appearance' of being a truck over actually being a truck does not inspire confidence for me. Handling? In a truck? OK- but don't compromise anything else that makes a truck functional to do it, K? How big is the XT, anyway- no doubt the 24'? wheels are throwing off the visual proportions.