balthazar

>>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers."<< Did you miss this ??: Arguing that they are insignificant is no more 'a cop out' than assuming they are formidable, which seems to be your contention. Go poke Scott with a stick and see if he'll spill "the real numbers"; neither you or I have them. But basic assumptions can be reasonably estimated...>>"What is the rigidity/stiffness numbers of the chassie?"<< Better than the convertible- the hardtop has a roof. >>"What is the added weight?"<< Same weight as the convertible except, obviously, for the differences in the roof system. Everything else interchanges. >>"What is the added cost per unit?"<< Less than a 2-dr sedan since less modeling, parts engineering (& potentially less crash testing) is involved (all amortizied with the convert). >>"What is the gas milage penalty per unit?"<< Negligable, if anything. EPA has yet to rate cars in tenths or hundreths of a MPG last time I checked. >>"What is the crash score to meet the 5 star rating to keep insurance cost down for the average buyer?"<< A hardtop would get a better score than the convertible due to the rigid structure of the roof. >>"What is the added cost of the rear crank down window and other hardware to build it?"<< Nothing added- they're shared with the convertible. What is the added cost of engineering 2 separate window systems, weathersealing trials, glass molds, inner body quarter structures, etc, etc. >>"wWll if it is so damn easy to build a hard top that meets all the demands of cost, weight and goverment reg then why has no one under 50K have not figuered it out?"<< My theory: The accounting department is too short sighted: a fixed pane is 'cheaper' than a roll down window, case closed. Also IMO, the focus is erroneously on a hardtop vs. a sedan, but as soon as a convert is on the table, no one bothers to look at that comparison. How many identical models are engineered simultaneously & from the start as converts & 2-dr sedans? How many have no convert model to share engineering/parts with? How many had a convert added later? This would entail a degree of 're-engineering' to meet safety benchmarks. >>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers. No vauge well will just use convertible parts answer will do."<< How is this vague? Use the same piece on a convertible & a hardtop- only the roofs/accompanying trim differ. It made perfect working, successful sense in the '50s and '60s, you know, when General Motors --for example-- built a HD THM-400 & a lighter-duty THM-350 that handled every powertrain combo they threw at it, from 225-500HP. Today's SOP is built a new transmission every time the HP load goes up by 30.

CCS graduates a quantity so small... they like to say they have 100% placement, so IF you graduate, you're 'guaranteed a job. Where the Big Wrinkle comes in is- they admit 4-5 times the number of students who they KNOW will never graduate, and have fun trying to transfer 2nd, 3rd & 4th year credits to another major! At least that's the way it was when I was there. DO your research- there are simply not a lot of job openings for car designers vs. those who would like to do it.

It may work out that way, but there is little legitimate reason to engineer 2 'completely different' shells for the same model. Put the bracing in both shells, use the same side glass and you engineer ONE car plus a convertible top instead of 2 individual shells for the same car. The side glass doesn't 'know' if it's rolling up against a rubber seal attached to a canvas roof or a steel one; use the same damned glass! The floor reinforcement cannot weigh that much; unibody cars have no frames and they pass crash standards, the convertible has to pass crash standards/safety benchmarks... aside from things like pop-up roll bars or side air bags in a conv vs. roofed car- how much are we talking about here? Like I posted earlier, we have no reliable numbers for either (bottom line) cost or weight- some here are taking a lot more stock in "less weight & cost" than others are willing to, regardless of the source. I have no beef with Scott and trust his information, but what are we talking about here: 40 lbs or 400 lbs?? $100 or $1000?? If it's closer to 40 lbs and $100, I'm disappointed.

This concept & the Enclave are polar opposites, IMO. The Enclave is classy, stately & gorgeous. The Riv concept is overall just... wierd. Buick should strive for a cohesive design language; the Enclave is a fantastic rave-review first step on that road. Any Riv should follow that pattern, not strike out in a brand new direction.

>>"the gnx was "rated" at "276 hp"<< Actual output was 345 HP.

FIXED. BTW- the Silverado standard gas 6.0L offers 353 HP, not 315. Optional Sierra gas engine offers 403 HP & 417 torque. toyoda optionally offers.... 271 hp. Oh what a feeling...

>>"Americans are lazy bastards. It's sad that the majority can't drive a manual transmission...."<< or operate manual steering or manual brakes or manual windows or mechanical throttle linkage or handle a car without ABS, stability control, active suspension, laser cruise control, back-up cameras, read a map, etc, etc, etc. To me, it's hypocritical- either the driver operates these features or the car does. Tho I primarily drive automatics and prefer them, I do own an 8-speed manual. And the above quote brings to question: are the European drivers who also prefer automatics likewise 'lazy Euro bastards'? Same for the japanese, I assume? Or just because someone has different preferences from you doesn't mean one has to pidgeonhole that person with a derogatory label, right, vipes? :wink:

Obviously- the best choice by far is to offer both right out of the box. This staggered powertrain offering business prevailant in today's industry continues to puzzle & annoy me (and undoubtedly many others).

>>"Desoto and Chrysler also available with fuel injection in 1957."<< 1958. Plymouth offered it, too. >>"Ford and GM both used Chrysler based engines in their funny cars. To stay COMPETITIVE."<< GM never built any funny cars, pretty sure Ford didn't either. Don't forget; GM was "out" of racing come Jan '63 {wink!}. ChryCo probably did in '64-65, tho. The few guys who used MoPar powered GMs had plenty of competition from those using proprietory GM power, too, ESP pre-426 Hemi. >>"Chrysler 300/ Max Wedge Mopars both big HP cars with suspension to match both brought out BEFORE the GTO."<< I give full props for the 300/Adventurer/D500/Fury, but GM had other 'big HP cars with suspension' before the GTO (not, tho, before the ChryCo super cars). SD Pontiacs, to name one.

God- just came back from 2 days at Hershey... what didn't I see? How cool was it to see a line of cars looking to turn into the ground Saturday morning.... the occasional hapless plasto-junk drivers thinking "Showcars" meant they could park among them... rejected; vehemently turned out of the line to drive on to who cares where, while all the real cars were ushered in with reverence aplenty. Brass, chrome, heavy-guage sheetmetal, flabbergastingly-complex stampings, real, actual, tactile wood, clear, straightforward engineering, the curious, the iconic, the classic, the time-honored... My list would run a full 'page' here.... {sighs contentedly} 1954 Hudson Italia 1915 Van Blerck (one-off speedster conversion of American-LaFrance fire engine. 17L I-6)

Correct- different in operation but same in principal- the Dynaflow was a continuously-variable transmission.

>>"Today's cars are too good. There are very few inherent flaws in modern cars...from any manufacturer. In order to tell one from another, you need to be nit-picky. It's virtually the only way to tell one car from another."<< In many regards; yes- they are quite good. In other areas, not at all. But I will agree in this manner: the range of quality has narrowed greatly overall in modern cars... so I do understand the nit-pickiness. However, I would like to make a formal request for journalists to dial WA-AAAY back on the sensationalism & over-dramaticism for sheer effect rather than to convey objectivity, because it's ridiculously over-the-top. As cars have gotten better, car reviewers have gotten decidely worse. >>"could YOU write a review article...say 1,000 words, on a new product without any bias or any of the flaws you find in modern review articles?"<< I could write one without the current journalistic flaws, yes, but of course it would be subjective (as all reviews naturally are); I have biases of my own (notably different from the mainstream)... however I do recognize them.

Gotta hand it to subaru: each one looks quite different yet they are consistantly unattractive. The krinkle-cut grille outline & the sharp-cornered rectangular opening below that clash, and why are the front bumper side 'scoops' facing rearward like air extractors; venting heat from the fog lamps? That front bumper curving over the front wheels reminds me of the '58 Aurora:

Years ago, cars were reviewed individually, a frank report on that car itself. You got the positives & the negatives on that car alone, and you could better judge (IMHO) the car as a singular, as how you might respond to it. Now every single piece is outright or covertly written as a comparison to another car: seats not as comfortable as Car X, engine smoother than Car Y, no NAV like Car Z, giving you comparitively less information and creating a desire for Car WXYZ, which of course doesn't exist, while Car W, Car X, Car Y and Car Z now automatically have dissatisfaction built right in. You now have to compare Car W not to what your impressions might be, but to 4 or 6 other cars, needlessly cmplicating the process. Of course, as stated above, just go test drive the damned thing. It would be very interesting to me to go back and learn the catalyst for the present day's incessant comparisons in product review.

That is indescribably grotesque.

>>"...but you're bashing it based on them not giving you the granular details of how they weigh the measurements? I understood the description...it's weighing the factors based on how much the public cares. If fuel economy is important, than it will be weighted more than something like rear seat comfort, if that's less important. What's the problem?"<< In this, the 'Information Age', I see no reason why a self-proclaimed unbiased entity would not openly publish their 'formula' for tabulation. In CR's case, they have a vested interest in appeasing their subscribers, just like every other automotive publication- so outright refusing to reveal their methods in understandable, if not reprehensible. Here, of course (and not unlike CR again), the reason is obvious: there's no possible, scientific method of 'translating' verbal commentery into hard numeric data. Therefore, there are as many opportunities for personal bias to creep in as there is for water to run out of a sieve. It's deeply flawed before it even publishes it's first list, and I haven't even re-mentioned the deeply flawed source of all their information.

U.S. News is doing something both old & new. Old: they're jumping on the ever-expanding bandwagon of car reviews. New: they're attempting to 'review the reviewers'. Here's the Press release. >>"Even though an automobile is one of the most expensive products most people will ever buy, car reviews are notoriously subjective. Now U.S.News is taking the bias out of the advice, with a unique ranking system that distills information from numerous reviews into a single numerical score between 1 and 10. The scores allow us to rank virtually every mainstream car on the market, from best to worst in 23 categories..."<< Admirable, perhaps, but automatically problematic. If the initial reviews they're basing their 'review of reviews' on is "notoriously subjective", how is their result any less biased ??? Oh, wait; here's how! >>"...our researchers use proprietary software to locate the most credible car reviews available--often several dozen or more. Our analysts then carefully read the reviews and, using consistent guidelines, translate each author's written opinions into numerical scores for different aspects of the car..."<< Uh-oh. >>"...scores are then combined and weighted based on several factors, including the results of a national consumer survey asking which qualities buyers most value in a car."<< It's supposed to be simple, so they say. 1-10 scores. Fine. But where is the explaination of the formula, because if you go to any segment ranking page, such as Best Upscale Midsize, you cannot simply average their individual scores- some have an overall score lower than their category numbers, some higher, depending on the mysterious formula for weighing certain individual scores over others. Smells like CR all over again- esp the "translates" bit.. I suppose this is all moot- who would go to U.S. News for car reviews, anyway.

OMG: it has fender skirts !!! Shades of 1975 (except that they're plexiglas !) > FAR too radical for a production mercedes. > The profile is absolutely, intolerably hideous. > How is 238 hp (+20 with electric assist) "competitive" in a car that weighs 4500 lbs??? (Not to mention going from 382 hp to 238 ??) > Is MPG really important to those paying nearly $90K? > Is something amiss with the current s-class that M-B is showing a finished replacement not due out for 4 years? Backlash over the mazda fenders??

>>"All the initial priase for the Malibu did was set everyone up for dissapoinment. It just isn't the showstopper it was made out to be, and the interior is spoiled by the same cheapo door panels and center stack in the Aura."<< Ironic: this is the exact same impression I encounter when inspecting various BMWs up close. All the hype and sensationalism- the cars never match up anywhere close to that in terms of design or finish. I have been repeatedly 'set up for disappointment'- who do I complain to? >>"The Malibu is a competitve package, but it really doesn't make many advances in terms of design."<< Neither has the camry (and at least in an exterior sense; the accord) ever made many advances in terms of design- but that hasn't held them back either. >>"Judging by cars like the '08 CTS, GM can do better than this."<< Judging by the CS, BMW can do a LOT better than the current 745.

Symbols do not bother me. In fact, as an artist, there is a certain fascination in the 'power' & reaction some symbols effect on observers- it's an intriquing study. I recently heard that (IIRC) a Jewish Anti-Defamation organization officially objected to an arrangement of Navy buildings in CA that were laid out in adjoined 'L' formations.... you guessed it: in the shape of a swastika. Thing of it is; the symbol is not visible from the ground, and the buildings are in a no-fly-over zone, so they are not visible from the air.... we have internet satellite technology to blame for this one. Perhaps the JAD folks are worried that Jewish extra-terrestrials will get offended. Link: >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20996515/ << I'm actually offended by this talk-show idiot: ""I'm concerned about symbolism," he said. "This is not the type of message America needs to be sending to the world." It's NOT a "message" and it's not "from" America, it's a geometric arrangment. Get over it. $600,000 of our tax money now has to be wasted altering something that's invisible.

That car is far too 'origami'-esque to be a Riviera- tho some of the details are very intriquing. Refine it, sublime it and resubmit it first.

Thanks for keeping us (2) in mind. I've already had my power steering box rebuilt- believe it or not it was 3.3 turns lock-to-lock from the factory, but now it is all new with a faster ratio to boot. As Smokey Yunick once said: "You can't make a race horse out of a pig, but you can make one damned fast pig."

Tonight I worked the Rutgers football game as a volunteer- my son's school takes home a % of the gross (averages $2500 per home game), and a bunch of us run the concession stand. I got to man the iced beverage bin outside of the stand, so I had a wide field of vision along the concourse to scan the crowd. Rutgers was something like 11-1 last year, so the crowds are near capacity this year too, around 40K at home (they lost tonight: 3-2 so far. Frankly, I don't follow college ball; I don't care). Anyway, 95% of the crowd are students or of student age. My God, what a poon parade. So... what's the anecdotal line on the college girls these days? Is it pretty tough to hook up, or are any of you straight college pukes hittin it OK? Also, is it safe to say that 2 chicks walking & holding hands are a couple, or just especially platonically friendly? Just curious...

13 trim levels ?? That's half the alphabet ! Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-A Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-B Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-C Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-D Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-F Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-G Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-H Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-J Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-K Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-L Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-M Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-N Tundra Tundraspeed Speed Dubbacab TRD-P Actually, FOG nailed it: the move reeks of desperation.

>>"To them, Toyota is more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. Hell, most people don't even remember when Chevrolet was any of that."<< If today's buyers 'don't even remember when Chevrolet was' all-American, then they sure as hell don't primarily think about toyota as being American or Japanese- they are bought overwhelmingly because of the reputation/perception over all else. This idea that because so many buy toyotas that those people consider it American is an unsupportable falacy- it's journalistic schtick.