balthazar

>>"A bill was STOPPED today that would require the oil companies to use their HUGE profits to prop up gas in this country."<< Little wonder- I would be shocked if the government could legally force a private (non-government) corporation to do anything specific with their profits. >>"They need to 1) be controlled to the extent that prices are capped or rise gradually "<< Oil companies are regulated on numerous fronts by the government, have been for 100 years now. Further, oil future commodity price increases DO have daily caps, but when just about every single day sees another increase, yes- the price over time has risen markedly. The speculator pressure has been relentless. >>"...or 2) Be required to invest in new oil prospects as opposed to their own damn stock."<< U.S. oil companies have invested $100B towards new technology, new sources and alternative fuels between '00 and '05 alone. I do not know for sure what, if any of that amount is required by the fed. >>"You think that's actually going to happen?"<< WHat- that the U.S. Gov would do something similar, or that the japanese society will call for the crucifixtion of toyota? Neither, actually. >>"this is america... land of the self loathing and home of the ignorant."<<{/i] Can't argue there.

>>"It's high time this government targets and attacks oil companies "<< That could not be more misguided. Aren't paying enough at the pump as it is? Do you think the oil Cos are going to just pay any additional taxes out of their corproate coffers? Don't we at the pump already pay between 40 & 65 cents/gal to the government right now FOR NOTHING? Any 'windfall taxes' are only going to be passed right on thru the pump. Think about it. Does Japan's society clamor to "target & attack" toyota (Q1 '07 profit: $5.7B), or instead does their gov. pay for 100% of a new tech's R&D (hybrid)? Hmmmm... supporting a national manufacturer- what's that all about?

>>"The Tacoma uses a drive-by-wire system, where computer controls replace a direct physical connection between the accelerator pedal and the throttle."<< Single, stupidest, most needlessly complicated change ever done to automobiles.

The same entity (U.S. Government) that loses a potential $53B with the slip of a pencil, is the same entity that many are going to entrust to provide affordable universal healthcare. Can't wait. A contract is a contract- legal ones are binding, no? My question is; did the guy who was responsible (a-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!- what's THAT word mean ??) for the mistake get fired?

Any chance they are going to verify any of the facts they present, esp regarding the more distant past, for $25... or will it be the usual 'good-enough' media effort?

'maybe 12' is definately too low: my '64 389 Cat got a steady 14 (clocked every tank over 2 years) with the RHM- THM should be a smidge better. I was also VERY heavy on the gas in that car.

That is super sweet- I would prefer a '67 over the '68 (funkier), but that is a hot wagon. I'm going to have to pick one up someday- I eyeballed a '64 Cat last fall... was really tempted.

>>"...a Congress that in an election year has put driving down gas prices at the top of its agenda."<< If only.

>>"I can see no good contradiction to those that say Hummer has been a complete waste of resources and diversion."<< Simple- did it make money as a division? If yes, then of course it was 'worth it'. And it's brand image may be low in the U.S. right now, but I'll bet handsomly that it would do very well in the Middle East & Asia.

toot toot!

I did not mean to insinuate YOU were being disrespectful, capriceman: this is the default associative number that the media bandies about whenever the Holocaust is mentioned. I just feel it's appropriate to point out the disparity in the hopes it will someday change. You point RE the quantity of 6 million is vaild & yes; very hard to grasp.

The nature of commodities speculation became obvious to me when I noted that 'an expected storm in the Gulf' resulted in rising oil prices, yet next week's report that the national supply of gasoline rose for the 7th month in a row also resulted in the rise of the price of oil. That right there threw the whole 'supply & demand' claim right out the F'ing window.

Well, in that the Corvette is one of the best handling cars available anywhere, 'not as good as' is a far cry from your implied 'bad', isn't it?? >>"The XLR's ability to gallop where other cars would saunter surprised me. It swallowed bad pavement, sharp turns and flat straights with equal aplomb. One key to its stability is a system called Magnetic Ride Control.... The end result is a ride that is smooth over little bumps one instant and firm for bigger dips the next instant. Point the nose into a turn and the car takes a firm set with very little body lean."<< -- familycar.com >>"Throwing the XLR through turns is a nearly religious experience. The rear- mounted transmission gives the car a nearly 50/50 weight balance between front and rear, and the Magnetic Ride Control (the same electronically controlled, magnetic-fluid based, real-time suspension damping system found on the Corvette) works with this balance to deliver a ride that’s softer than expected on the highway, but stiff and precisely responsive when you get aggressive in the twists and turns. When I push the XLR as hard as any car I’ve tested, it impresses."<< -- windingroad.com >>"Then the corners begin to weave left-right and tighten up. Does the Cadillac still feel like a Mercedes? No, but that's not necessarily bad. You'll find the American sports car as willing to take on the twisty stuff, but with less of a hard edge than the Mercedes. There's initial understeer, of course, good turn-in and an ability to remain stable without being harsh, plus a solid transition back the other way as the road turns. The XLR-V may not give you the look-at-me-I'm-a-race-driver thrill of the SL55 AMG, but it wouldn't be far behind on a curving road…and it is arguably a better day-to-day driver."<< --RoadandSnobbery.com >>"Out on the highway, it cruises along as comfortably as any good sedan. Bumps are absorbed without fuss and directional stability is never an issue. Take the next offramp at speed and the suspension immediately firms up to minimize body roll and maximize available grip. Throw a couple of mid-turn ripples into the mix, and the XLR continues tracking predictably through the turn seemingly unruffled by the corner's events. The story's the same on back roads, where Cadillac's flagship really surprises. Thanks to its near 50/50 weight distribution and relatively neutral nature, the XLR actually begins to feel smaller the more it's tossed around. Eventually this balance gives way to mild understeer at the limit of adhesion, but up till then grip and control remain consistent. Along the way, the steering feels communicative, albeit a touch heavy at parking-lot speeds, and the brakes quietly get the job done with very good feel and modulation. Not only does the XLR's chassis accept most anything thrown in its direction, the engine and transmission remain ever-enthusiastic participants. The Northstar's power delivery is perhaps the smoothest of any GM engine to date, working in concert with one of the smartest and most intuitive transmissions around."<< --more RoadandSnobbery.com >>"With a Corvette-based suspension, a very wide track and low centre of gravity, Magnetic Ride Control, and Michelin ZP Extended Mobility run-flat P235/50WR-18 inch tires, the XLR has terrific handling and extremely high cornering limits. That was expected. But what surprised me was the comfortable ride, and a tight body that exhibited very little flex or cowl shake. A sports car this may be, but it the ride is neither stiff nor uncomfortable."<< --CanadianDriver.com I dunno, sounds pretty spanky....

>>"...they handle very well. The XLR, as I recall, does not."<< What ?? It has "bad" handling- on a Corvette chassis with Magna-Ride ?? Where are you 'recalling' this from? Go google some road tests a while...

Without getting into the specifics of the numbers- there is still an unsettling tendancy to exclude all the non-jews when talking about Holocaust victims- whatever their percentage was. That's just not right and I'm still (somewhat) surprised it continues..

Yeah- moltie; I know the sedans & wagons were dropped the same year- I was waving my sharpened stick around @ you. Point was- these were very very large vehicles, the only full-size BOF GMs left, facing increasing emission standards (IIRC) they were supposedly going to find formidable to meet, not to mention the sales were never huge there to begin with. But when talking about the time period (mid-'90s, not "now"), the facts are that the market was increasingly shifting to trucks, the B-bodies were not what one would call popular, and it would've made no sense at all to ignore market demand and keep the B-Bodies going so a few thousand wagons were available for big families/towing. There was no business case to do so; the B-bodies were already living on borrowed time in '92. There was no efficiency advantage to the wagons over a Tahoe. And the ONLY comment we all would've been reading in 2002 was "GM is STILL building those monster land yachts - what is this: 1960 ?!?!?" {For some it's always: damned if they do, damned if they don't.} What "GM is paying now" in regards to 10 years ago is immaterial- japan likewise paid hansomly for decades building tiny, underpowered, unsophisticated sedans while domestic manufacturers were swelling their marketshare to -what- 80%?? by building convertibles, musclecars, full-size, trucks, sports cars, etc, etc, etc. Hindsight is everything... but in this discussion; nothing.

And where were the B-body sedans- still continued after the wagons were gone... or was the entire platform discontinued? What were the sales trends for the B-bodies vs. the trucks? I know for a fact that trucks reached 54% of the new car market in the early '00s -- should GM have ignored that trend and continued to build a smattering of -what was unilaterally called dinosaurs even then- B-bodies and conceeded yet another segment to the japanese?

>>"the midsize and fullsize domestic wagons died out with the... "<< demise of a BOF chassis with a towing/cargo capacity worth anything to owners who needed such. It was not a grab for profits.

Not to take away from the solemn intent of this thread, which it goes without saying is a just rememberance, but I am compelled: >>"...Holocaust number 6 million jews..."<< the generally accepted figure is 11 million killed by the Nazis in the name of ethnic cleansing- we should be far and away from singling only the jews out- esp in this age of overwrought political correctness. Why are the other 5 million murdered commonly excluded- to what end ?

I see a truely surprising quantity of STSs around by me- what is their annual production number vs. the CTS?

>>"Perhaps that wasn't so much something explicit as it was that one had to assume that the money/effort could have been put towards actually making a competitive smaller car."<< That's a mile-wide assumption, IMO.

>>"And there's no B-pillars "<< Actually, since there's no place for a B-pillar to go, and pillars are so designated 'alphabetically'... I would say an El Camino DOES have a B-pillar... but the good news is there's no C-pillar to muck up the lines.

>>"The struggling auto maker must now try to rapidly reduce its dependence in North American truck sales, once seen as the key to its turnaround. The abrupt shift, outlined at GM's annual meeting, is an acknowledgment that Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner miscalculated in 2005 when he bet big on trucks. As far back as 2005, when gas prices were rising past $2 a gallon, SUV sales were falling, and many in the industry were saying the SUV era was coming to an end. Mr. Wagoner disagreed. That year, he accelerated the launch of the company's new trucks and SUVs by six months."<< When has GM EVER stated trucks were key to any turnaround plan? And accelerating the launch of a series of trucks ALREADY DONE in the face of rising fuel costs was the only thing TO DO; the alternatives would be: DELAY the launch past when originally due- debuting the models under even HIGHER fuels costs, or scrapping the redesign totally and continuing the old models indefinately and flushing all that R&D money straight down the drain. Yeah.

I am NOT in the market for another major project, so the true answer to #1 is no. Were I, I just might cut up a rough but restorable wagon, yes. #2: It would be easier to use a B-59 wagon w/ B-59 quarters & tailgate already in place, a scenario which would not involve any frame issues or front- or rear-clip grafts... than to splice B-59 quarters on an El Camino, in my experience/opinion. The Caddy frame makes no sense unless it was shortened- C-59 Elky wheelbase: 119 B-59 coupe: 123" '62 Cadillac: 129.5. Something is up, here.

Hummer is NOT exported to india or china, correct? With the boom still going on in those countries, I would think the demand there for a Hummer-type vehicle could be considerable.