balthazar

Well, I'm surprised at ^. g35 comes off as a larger car in my eye, tho I cannot recall seeing them side-by-side; guess the lower/wider dimension of the g35 makes it appear offhandedly to be larger than the G6. I like both the G6 and the g35's styling... to an extent. The "camry" solara is flat ghastly, tho.

What is this; bible school ? It's not "2 wrongs"- it's a leveled playing field.

I found the sketch of the '59 in a book I already have- perhaps that's the only spot I ever saw it. Interesting thing is, the illustration bears no resmeblense to what the text describes, which is the Mike Kollins-built roadster on a 1950 Packard chassis... or the tan & brown job pictured above. Illustration shows a 2-dr hardtop with long flying buttress C-pillars and chiseled lines- very modern for '59. Sounds like the guy who proposed the '59 built the "1930" instead (same name: Kollins). A shame- the '59 looked damned sharp from the drawing.

Really?First off, let's address the weight issue as you so kindly harped on the CTS about. '07 745i: overall length: 198", weight: 4376, 22.1 lbs/inch of length '08 DTS: overall length: 207", weight: 4009, 19.4 lbs/inch of length Why is the bmw so overweight ?? 745 wheelbase: 118", DTS wheelbase: 116" '07 745i: ft/rr headroom: 39.2"/38.5" '07 DTS: ft/rr headroom: 38.3"/38.4" '07 745i: ft/rr shoulder room: 59.3"/58.7" '07 DTS: ft/rr shoulder room: 60.0"/59.2" '07 745i: ft/rr legroom: 41.3"/37.2" '07 DTS: ft/rr legroom: 42.5"/42.0" '07 745i: trunkroom: 18.0 ft3, interior volume (mfr) 104 '07 DTS: trunkroom: 19.0 ft3, interior volume (mfr) 115 BMW 745 has 2 more inches of wheelbase but 7.2 inches less legroom!! Also note that while legroom & headroom can be power-adjusted (legroom at the expense of the rear passengers), shoulder room cannot be varied. Interior & cargo volume are also larger on the DTS. Looks to me the DTS is utilizing it's space very well, certainly no worse than the 745.

>>"the CTS is over 4000 pounds,"<< According to yahoo.autos, '08 CTS manual starts at 3509lbs and the automatic starts at 3568 lbs. Motor Trend spec box says '08 weight starts at 3850.

>>"check out gminsidenews.com smk4565 has an obsession with hating Buick. scores of posts railing on Buick. he just found a new site to repeatedly say "kill buick" over and over again. get ready, it's gonna get real tiring and at times nonsensical."<< Too late.

>>"Cadillac has to bury the stereotypes people have about them, a lot of baby boomers still think they are an old geezer car with poor quality. My parents are like that, and I know many other boomers that think the same and won't even test drive a Cadillac, and will go spend more money on something European, solely because of image with their baby boomer friends."<< Obviously, that's not based in reality. How does a corporation go about countering the irrational and the unfounded, and is it worth the cost? What do they do- triple ad budgets, quadruple the hyperbole and pay to place the product everywhere to the point of saturation? >>"I too wish they shrunk the CTS, but they made it bigger and heavier for some reason, so it seems that they will have to add features, V8/hybrid and add price to put it where it belongs. And they need a smaller car for sure."<< EVERYTHING has gotten bigger over time/each generation: the toyota xb just gained 600 lbs- what's the percentage weight gain there? Mini is getting stretched, current civic is the weight of an accord of 15 years ago, s-class is nearly a limousine. Same with the camry- slowly swelling like a puss-filled boil. Cars & truck grow because that's where the demand leads them. >>"The G35 is about 187 inches long, G37 coupe is 183, that is the second biggest car in the small class. The C-class, A4, X-type (I know nobody buys it) and 3-series are all about 179-183 inches long. The MKZ and Acura TL are about 190 inches long, but I put them with the Lexus ES350, those are just fancied up front drive family sedans, not the market Cadillac is shooting for."<< Ahh good: hard data. So when the bulk of the crowd was 179-183 and the g35 was wallowing around at 187, was it 'competitive' ?? I never heard the tl was 'uncompetitive' due to overall length @ 190" (FWD; of course), and it's the same length as the 1st gen CTS. CTS is only 3 inches longer than the g35... so there has to be an exact specific overall length measurement that divides the 'competitive' from the 'uncompetitive', and apparently it's either 188" or 189" overall. Wait- the proof: 3-series is the shortest and sells the most... because it's the shortest. Gotcha. >>"More importantly all those cars are in the 3400-3700 pound weight range and get decent gas mileage, the CTS is over 4000 pounds, more than a V8 Mercedes. "<< Not this V-8 mercedes: Curb Weight AT : 4365 lbs. And with all that plastic....

Collectible Automobile has a great 15-page cover feature on the 1st gen Riv in it's 5/85 issue, but there's not a single mention as to the body shell code other than it was unique and had a number of first-time advanced features that required special handling & engineering to solve. Buick, a Complete History does not mention a body code, neither does the 10/62 Car Life feature. Undoubtedly, engineering began with the B-Body, but it's its own animal from there. Yes: it's an X-frame like the big Buicks, but unique. It's not 'weird', moltar, just different.

>>"Demand for big mushy ride cars is dropping fast, it shows in Cadillac's poor resale values."<< You typed "Cadillac"; did you mean the DTS? because Cadillac sales rose steadily from IIRC 2000 thru 2005. Clearly the demand for Cadillacs in general is on the increase. Either they don't have "mushy" rides or ride quality has no bearing whatsoever on resale value. Pick one. >>"Lexus advertises the car that parks itself, and people think the brand is so technologically advanced, and ignore the Camry based cars."<< Not in the showroom; the lexus camry is the volume leader among their cars. Lexus is predominantly a truck seller by volume, anyway. >>"Cadillac still isn't taken seriously by long time import buyers, and they aren't thought of as a truly high end brand."<< Targeting the die hard import loyalist is a waste of time & money- these people are badge slaves who will never let go of 1980s imagery RE Cadillac. A 'super sedan' will NOT change their minds either. Kinda like how toyota has wasted 15 years going after the big pick-up market :wink:. >>"CTS is too big right now, so it will have to gain in price around 2010 to around $44,000 base. So the interior will need an upgrade, far more standard equipment, maybe a 2.8 DI V6 + hybrid, 3.6 DI, and Ultra V8 for engine choices. Then they will be closer to the E-class, 5-series, Lexus GS, Infiniti M."<< It's far easier marketing-wise to shrink the CTS 3 or 4 inches so it's "competitive" with the import small fries , than bump the price by a whopping 25%. BTW- anyone know the next largest 'small fry' competitor in the CTS's segment- is it also 'too big to be competitive'? What's the official overall length range for competitiveness: is it a 3" window, or 4"? And the window is always moving; how big was the '80s 3-series-- was it too small to compete then? Hey; remember when we all erroneously thought 'competitivness' was based on a cornicopia of factors such as price, performance, vehicle type, features, quality, etc... when the only important factor is overall length!! God, sometimes we're all such noobs!! {falls off chair in peals of embarassed laughter}...

Hm-mm... I don't get it. I assume the enthusiasm is solely based on 'it's coming!!', because the mule above is pretty meaningless otherwise.

The question: What cars & when used the E-Body? Don't start typing yet.... I believe a huge degree of confusion comes from those who confuse body designations with chassis designations, which are usually the same folk who want to call all BOF chassis' "platforms" as if they were unibodies. Chassis's, or frames, were NOT designated by the same body letter codes. The B-Body Buick rode a completely different chassis/frame than a B-Body Pontiac in 1960, for example. And FRAMES ARE NOT 'PLATFORMS' !!! "Buick introduces the prestige, E-body based, Riviera, as a 1963 model." --( http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1960.html ) "There was styling, of course: distinctly Cadillac, beautifully masterminded by GM design chief William L. Mitchell -- and so different from both the Toro and the second-generation 1966 Buick Riviera that some observers wondered whether they all really used the same new GM E-body." --( http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad67e.htm ) "This platform {E-Body} was the basis for the following vehicles: 1967–2002 Cadillac Eldorado, 1966–1992 Oldsmobile Toronado, 1966–1976 (RWD), 1979–1993 (FWD) Buick Riviera (the 1977-1978 Riviera was made on the B platform) --( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_E_platform ) EDIT- just revised the E-Body entry @ wiki, tho there are still unanswered questions. In fact, the entire earlier body designation list is not firmly established in the hobbyist circle: conflicting information has abounded for decades on some of them. The wiki entry for B-Body claimed B-Body production started in 1962... where the author picked that blueberry from, I have no idea. I took it back to 1959, when a major re-engineering took place, but the A-, B-, C- and D-Body designations go back to the 1940s. Anyone know of an accurate historical book on Fisher Body??

According to WikiunreliaPedia, Lakewood opened in 1927 and last produced vehicles for MY 1990. {.... rewriting the awful Wiki entry for Lakewood- loaded with bad grammar & errors.}

Are those flush-to-the-bumper taillights going to make production?? Gonna be a lot of busted-taillight nissans running around if so. Reminds me of traditional (illegal??) 'european-spec' bumpers. Trunklid opening looks to be about 16" f-t-b; what the hell is anyone going to be able to get in there? Surely the space-saver can't get out that way? I like the reverse-cut on the front fenders, tho I much prefer it when Buick did it in the late '90s and early '00s and it ran thru from the front to the rear. Grille is a lot more refined than the JC Whitney special the current car uses, but the tired 3-hole treatment under the bumper is as old & common as dirt. Overall clean and non-offensive, but not especially stylistically engaging. Hope to hell nissan did something major with the exhaust note. Perhaps double mufflers and a tape recording of the LS6? :wink:

Too damned busy chasing money...

Thanks Ven. The Super grille is a tad too deep IMO (maybe bring the bottom dip up 2 inches), but that aside, I like it. Constantly we read that GM does not go far enough, here's a face that goes beyond the ubitquitous in-line-with-the-headlights grille of most every current car, and everyone gripes. The fact that most people "hate" it actually makes me like it even more.

Right: that one was built off a stretched Fleetwood Brougham and billed as a 1980, I believe- I forgot about that one. I seem to recall only -again- 1 was built. I have an article on it in my files somewhere.... No pics of the '59 then, Hudson??

How about someone toss up a side-by-side, all you grille haters...

I try and avoid the minutia claptrap associated with my vehicles. The less money I have tied up in dust collectors, the more I have for 3" true dual mandrel-bent exhaust (and the like). BTW- that jar has the '60 Tri-Shield emblem on the lid... making it '60-68 at best.

Are you sure FORD was involved in a 2000 Shelby Cobra? There was a concept 'Coba', a one-off circa 2005, but I read your post as insinuating a series of repro cars. There are at least 5 dedicated Cobra replicas on the market, a few that are excellent cars- I never heard about Ford being involved in any of them tho.

Nope; the same 40-yr old pig nostril grille was on it, plain as day. :AH-HA_wink: Then why doesn't the 'wood' LOOK real?? Why was it shiny-smooth like plastic and had a drab grey overtone like the dye went bad? The small oval of material on the upper doors, surrounded by plastic, was real leather?? Amazing job at making it look like plastic even from the distance of leaning over the window (top down). Earns a big fat 'Meh' from me.

I dunno- doesn't a bmw 328i convert go for over $40K+? I was looking in one Saturday and the interior looked extremely mediocre with some off fit-n-finish issues and horrible fake grayish plood. I don't remember any pleather on the doors there, either (dashtop was plastic). Guess Helmut Panke is a tad bit senile, too.

You're supposed to be able to find anything on the web, but I have searched a few times for this one car and come up empty (looking for pics). Maybe one of you guys knows where it is. There have been, I believe, 4 proposals for a 'new' Duesenberg to date (excluding 'classic repros'). This is the latest, the '06 'Torpedo' (frankly, it's hideous): Here's the '66, which came the closest to production; reportedly 50 were sold, but only 1 was built before legal issues cropped up and things were shut down. The prototype exists in fine shape at the A-C-D museum: This was a '63 proposal from Virgil Exner (he also proposed a number of other 'renewal' classics). Never built: This one shows up if you search for 1958/1959 Duesenberg. Built on a '51 Packard chassis and titled as a 1930 for some unknown reason: -- --- -- --- -- Now... what I am searching for is NONE of the above, but sketches of a design done in/intended for '59, a 2-dr hardtop with a 'flying buttress' roof design that bears some resemblences to the '66 Exner design. Exner may well have penned it. Anyone seen it anywhere?

For some people it's all about the spec sheet & bragging rights. For others, it's moreso about the car itself and how it performs. >>"OMG! The Malibu V6 is forecasted to price mid-upper 20's?! I'm confused... isn't the Aura XR mid-upper 20's? I know the Malibu has a 4cyl for a base and the Aura has a 6, but I see too much overlapping here. "<< If GM NEVER has overlapping price points for similar cars, they will be down to what; about 6 cars total??

Yes; the 292 was the standard '55-57 T-bird engine.

1959 Cadillac Cyclone, XP-74, minus it's acrylic bubbletop.