balthazar

Flybrian= >>"I'm sorry"<< Wasn't so bad as all that: real base trim 4-dr yet had the Super Six 2bbl, 1-tone (bronze), painted roof, no vinyl bodyside moldings or extra trim, a real GI type, esp after I put fat blackwalls & the bullethole 'cop caps' on it. Just after I got it, I pulled up at my regular junkyard and that car cleared the place out. Took about 5 minutes before the guys crept out- they thought it was an IRS bust. Dad picked it up: 8 years old & only 8K on the odo - it was brand new. After x-years passed he gave it to me: I only had it titled in my name for about 6 months before I replaced it with my next daily driver: 09. 1964 Pontiac Catalina (still own)

01. 1964 Pontiac Grand Prix (still own) 02. 1964 Pontiac Catalina Ventura 03. 1956 Buick Super Riviera 04. 1978 Plymouth Volare 05. 1959 Buick Invicta (still own) 06. 1959 Buick Electra 07. 1973 Dodge Charger Rallye 08. 1965 Pontiac Catalina 09. 1964 Pontiac Catalina (still own) 10. 1964 Mercury Park Lane Marauder 11. 1965 Pontiac Bonneville 12. 1966 Pontiac Grand Prix 13. 1957 Ford F-250 StyleSide 14. 1994 Ford F-150 XL Special (still own) 15. 1972 Buick Riviera 16. 1965 Pontiac Bonneville 17. 1940 Ford COE (still own) 18. 1963 Chevrolet Nova 19. 1946 Ford pickup 20. 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD (still own) Average model year owned: 1963.9

While on the subject here; what's the down-low on the 3.1 & head gasket issues. Wife's '03 3.1 GP just turned 70K and the rumors make me uneasy- I'd like to trade it in. Are the '03s any better? If not, @ what mileage does the problem become a real possibility?

My wife owned a '98 with the 3800 SII. It was the first batch of production, too, so it had a few problems over it's lifetime (A/C head unit was replaced under warranty, 1 or both rear power window motors was replaced, and I had to repair one rear seatbelt retractor), but no other issues. Car was comfortable, had good power and it is missed today. Traded in with 105K.

The proportions are just too far off- they have zero flow. I was looking at a slammed '50 Ford yesterday- the front & rear clips look very good on the original shell. The 'Studebaker' S-10 conversion looks really good, but that's a full-rebody, isn't it?

>>"Since "marketing" can be given as a reason why the "old" engines and the LS engine share bore centers, can't marketing be the reason why GM would claim it was all-new?"<< Well, it could be, but of course that would never be supportable by the physical specs of the engine... and I cannot believe anyone would seriously even try to pass such an obvious fabrication. >>"Can we move onto other bones of contention that we might be able to debate...and potentially change one another's mind?"<< In reading over & participating in this thread, that looks to be highly improbable. Good luck with your research.

>>"What it is not is: "based on" Ed Cole’s legendary Small-Block. The only major feature it has in common with the Small-Block is a bore center-to-center measurement of 4.40 inches and we believe that exists for marketing reasons rather than an engineering case." The Idaho Corvette Page would like to thank John Juriga and Ron Sperry of GM Powertrain , John Heinricy of Corvette Development and Jim Schefter for their assistance in assembling this article...<< Any chance you'd consider some new sources, hud?

>>"Does it ever bother you?, When you see your vehicle in the junkyard?"<< I have never sent anything to the junkyard that was worthy. I was looking at a car today a buddy bought- still wearing 1964 plates and looking like it was from a junkyard, but all I could see was perfection.

>>"I like Saab's, but a lot of people were ticked off when GM bought them, citing that they were going to ruin the brand."<< A lot of other people were ticked off, citing the diverted funding was going to ruin at least some aspects of the core divisions.

SAAB is the ring in the GM bathtub. Fixed.

>>"The symbol represents 85 years of Chrysler history ..."<< The PentaStar really only represents 35 years of Chrysler history: 1964-1998, 2007.

Was it the 'show' car then (clean underhood, new Arrowhead)?

>>"So the media's right when it fits your argument?"<< When the media reguritates manufacturer-supplied technical data; yes. Does it really involve opinion (mine, yours, theirs) with regards to how many main bolts the Atlas 6 has?? (I hope not.) When they editorialize and/or review, which is just about everything else; seldom. But to those who DO accept nearly all that sees print, the fact that they all proclaimed it a clean-sheet engine should satisfy them completely. >>""Series 90" was what one source called the second generation V16 engine family"<< Well, that designation only refers to the model series, not the engine itself. However, that series indeed used the 431 V-16 exclusively. >>">>"Oldsmobile has had three engine families: Quad 4, 257, and V8"<< Olds had both small- & big-blocks (these counted for Chevy), plus where's the I-6 and I-8 ?? Early 1-cyl, 4-cyls, 6-cyls?? Only 3 engines in 104 years ??? Hudson-- ...since about 1930. That's why."<< Olds, "since 1930": I-6 : (198, 213, 221, 230, 238, 257) I-8 : (240, 257) V-8 : (303, 324, 371, 394, 425, 455) V-8 : (260? 265? 307, 330, 350, 400, 403) Quad 4 5 Cadillac, revised, from the beginning: 1-cylinder : '02-09 (98) I-4 : '05-14 (301, 393, 226) V-8 : '15-25 (314) V-8 : '26-35 (314) {used in Series 314 cars, "Although using same bore & stroke, with a few exceptions this was an entirely fresh design"} V-16 : '30-37 (452) {OHV} V-16 : '38-40 (431) {L-Head} V-8 : '36-47 (346) {L-Head} V-8 : '49-63 (331, 365, 390) {OHV} V-8 : '64-81 (429, 472, 500, 425, 368) {Everything except heads, rods & valves completely re-engineered, lower, shorter, lighter, stiffer, etc} V-8 : '82-91 {HT-Series} V-8 : '92-present {Northstar} 11

Sure!! >>"Oldsmobile has had three engine families: Quad 4, 257, and V8"<< Olds had both small- & big-blocks (these counted for Chevy), plus where's the I-6 and I-8 ?? Early 1-cyl, 4-cyls, 6-cyls?? Only 3 engines in 104 years ??? >>"Pontiac has had six engine families: Iron Duke, Split Head, Flat Head Six, Straight Six, Eight, and V8"<< No Indy ('slant') 4 ?? '32 V-8 denied? >>"Cadillac has had nine engine families: "<< No 1-cyl or 4-cyl ?? In researching this matter, undoubtedly years, displacements, names and/or codes should be impossible to miss. Why not use them? For example "Cadillac: Series 452, and Series 90" is strange : Series 90 is a model line, which overlaps the 2 V-16s ('30-36, '37-40) -- Series 90 runs from '36-40. "Series 452" likewise is the model line, but that ended before the 1st gen V-16 did, in 1935. In other words, the 1st gen V-16 was in both the Series 452 & the Series 90 - confusing. The manner in which I listed them is far more comprehensive. I would tend to lend more credibility to a more detailed list, than a vague, incomplete one, but perhaps I'm too 'involved'. Chevy LS engines were described repeatedly in the media as 'clean-sheet' designs. If an LS and the prior small block are in the same 'family' merely due to bore spacing, then just dump all other GM V-8s with 1 shared critical dimension in the same sack, too; they share just as much with the prior SBC. Why let intangibles such as division of origin override mass tangible differences- it's all the same corporation. There were also a number of early divisions with proprietory engines and I do not agree with omitting the HD engines either... bottom line: there cannot be a proclaimed GMNA total without a LOT more digging.

'Hudson'= >>"Chevrolet's 1955 small block can trace its ascendents to the current crop of small-block V8s (and the 4.3L V6). I know most of you want to break the family up into generations, but it's the same family."<< So your definition of 'family' is; piston configuration = an engine family? Is a Chevrolet V-8 and an Olds V-8 in the same family, too? I disagree. IMO, anytime a near- or total re-engineering of an engine is undertaken, and the result is a majority of dimensions & parts are no longer interchangable, that's a new family, even within the same piston configuration. >>"Cadillac has had Northstar, HT (4.1, 4.5, 4.9), big block OHV V8 (is this ONE from the 1950s through the 425cid of the 1980s?). I'm sure there's one I'm missing, but that's three."<< A division cannot have a big block unless it also concurrently has a small block, therefore Cadillac has had neither. 425 ended in '79. But there were complete redesigns in '49 and '63... making 4 V-8s since WWII, plus those I listed above. These different familes share almost nothing: the '63 shared only heads, rods & valves, NOTHING else with the '64 & up. Dimensions & specs were all changed, even the positioning of accessories. The '64 engine is almost as different as an Olds motor. >>"I was told that Pontiac's V8s were all one family."<< You were told differently here, no? >>"Buick had three (?) V8 families including the aluminum engine sold to Rover. The V6 was based on one of those V8 families. Just the three?"<< Buick had the 'Nailhead' V-8, the 215, and small- & big-block V-8s. That's 4 there. V-6 was based on the 215 but what is going to interchange between the 2; pistons & rods maybe? This has to be yet another family. I'm not even going to touch Chevy- too much info to go thru, but right off the bat there's the Corvair flat 6, I believe a 90-degree V-6, and numerous 4s from earlier on. I do not believe W-head BBs (348, 366, etc) should be lumped in with the others. >>"Only counting those, GMNA has had only 27 engine families since the demise of the straight-eight."<< What would Buick dropping the I-8 after '53 have to do with Cadillac having V-8s since '15? Am I wrong to sense a degree of purposeful... minimizing here?

Can financial value ever be made non-desirable?

Agreed: if I am correct in my recollection, the acids are by-products of combustion; those should occur in either 'dino' or synthetics.

Right: the media. Recall the 'bumper' articles, where they reported the repair cost from a mild front-end collision on various cars? Those are always expressed in dollar amounts, not as percentages of the sticker price. Same with window sticker fuel costs- dollars, not percentages. Lease-end ballon payments are not expressed as percentages, either. These are real world costs the consumer deals with directly. I see no reason resale values should be expressed ANY differently. You guys know the average comsumer; they hear "59%" and think it's way better than "33%", when IN FACT (in the above hypothetical) that "59%" residual costs the owner $23360. That's almost a brand new Mini, isn't it??? C'mon, O, this is not about 2 vehicles being in the same class, this is about the general perception that 'domestic resale values suck' when the reality is the 'better' import percentage may cost the owner a great deal more hard cash out-of-pocket come trade-in time. Even if this was a CTS & a 535, if the consumer accurately knew the money involved, it might weigh on his purchase decision. Tell me you don't initially think when you read 'GM's U.S. marketshare has dropped from 5x% to 2x%' that- Wow- GM is selling less than half the volume it used to there. Is it, or is it within less than a 1/10th of that 5x% percent volume? What does that tell you about percentages' accuracy? Look, some of you are fine & dandy with blindly accepting everything the media hit you over the head with. I for one feel it's in my best interest to look deeper. Selling magazines/newspapers/TV ad time is NOT primarily driven by the steadfast principal of truth above all. Media is NOT a public service, it's a business. And all that that implies.

>>"Interesting that the Motor Trend article says the '09 CTV-v will weigh 3600 pounds. Hard to believe when the '08 CTS 3.6 DI weighs about 4000. "<< That's with AWD- RWD weighs around 3850.

>>"After selling fewer than 300 cars, Toyota loaded its remaining inventory onto ships and sent it back home. "<< For a long time I had heard the actual number was either 7 or 9. Could toyoda have been fudging numbers that far back??

WTF, right? Check it: >>"For luxury cars with very high sticker prices, depreciation claims more money than it does for mass-market models that cost a lot less to begin with. That's true even for luxury models that retain their value very well. Over five years, the Porsche 911 GT3 — the tenth most expensive car to own — depreciates just 41% from its starting MSRP. By contrast, the Lincoln MKZ, the 10th least expensive-to-own luxury model, sheds about 67% of its base price. But the MKZ sells for around $30,000, compared to $106,000 for the 911 GT3. 67% of $30,000 is a lot less than 41% of $106,000 — that works out to $20,100 versus $43,460, respectively."<< You sure don't here the drive-by media tossing those numbers around, do you? '(Import) costs owner over $40 grand in 3 years.' Oh, no; instead we get compartmentalized, vague percentages. It's exactly like how all we ever read is about GM's declining marketshare, even tho for the longest time GM sold the same VOLUME of vehicles, it's just that there were a lot more players on the field. Imagine A-Rod's homerun total expressed as a percentage of Yankee's Homeruns- really tells you a lot. Complete article : http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/103...vehicles-to-own

>>"To me, a flagship should influence the styling direction for the brand from the top down. Instead, I look to the Solstice as the purest, genuine Pontiac in years. The G8 is outside the design language... it doesn't fit. "<< 100% truth.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Ravenous, crazed, slobbering Satty-brand enthusiasm...

>>"Toyota doesn't need a $3000 cash back deal..."<< Dealer by me is offering $7100 off the tundra. Yes, they need to. But the manner in which you gush about toyota, one would think they shouldn't offer dime 1 on ANY vehicle. >>"The Enclave is an Acadia basically, but with wood trim and slightly different shaped dash kind of like Trailblazer and Envoy but the 2 have different sheet metal."<< Enclave --> Acadia = ES350 --> camry. >>"Motor Trend rated {Mazda} better than the Honda Pilot ..."<< It was the acura mdx... or is that just "a pilot basically, but with wood trim and slightly different shaped dash" ?? >>"...and GMC Acadia because it was faster and drove and handled better than the Acadia. If the Acadia can't beat a CX-9, how will the Enclave beat the SRX, MDX, M-class and RX350?"<< OMG- these are SEVEN PASSENGER 4x4s, not 500-HP ferraris!! No one races these or even THINKS about 0-60 in these except the 55-yr old teenagers that write for magazines! Jesus- they ran them all 0-100; do you want 100-MPH 4600-lb acura & mazda trucks ripping down your street? These magazines can only test 1 type of vehicle- a sports car. Their analysis for anything else is nearly useless. BTW; here's your "faster" mazda: 0-60 -- GMC: 8.2 sec, mazda: 8.1 1/4-mile -- GMC: 16.4 sec, mazda: 16.3 Don't tell me; you could "easily" tell which was faster, right? Maybe you should be asking yourself why the SUV with 400-lbs less weight, nearly a lb less/hp, and better gears (3.46 vs. 3.16) (yes, I'm talking about the mazda)could only essentially equal the GMC in accceleration, handling (.80 Gs vs. .79 Gs, 28.2 sec figure 8 vs. 28.2 sec figure and provides 40,000 miles less powertrain warranty & 64,000 miles less roadside assistance can compete with the GMC at the same price point.

Pontiac was instigated & developed at the corporate level, both to plug a price gap in the marques and to amortize Chevrolet production costs. The 'prime directive' of Pontiac was 'a six in a Chevrolet chassis'. It was paired with Oakland merely because Oakland had assembly plant space (that Pontiac used for it's first year before building it's own factory in '27). In fact, Sloan rejected a formal application for Oakland to develop it's own 'price gap car' in 1924. Pontiac occupied a slot below where Oakland resided, as that slot was already occupied by Olds, so that there is little that points to Pontiac "replacing" the Oak. And it did not assume much, if any, hardware from Oakland either- the '32 V-8 aside. The Pontiac Six was built by Oakland's engine plant, but was primarily engineered by ex-Cadillac Chief Eng/now corporate Eng Ben Anibal... chassis was mostly Chevrolet. Oakland didn't even 'get' the car until June '25 and it was in production by Dec. There is almost no physical connection between Oak & Pont, it was overwhelmingly organizational.