balthazar

I drove my father's V-6 Lucerne once and I thought it was a fine, quiet, composed, comfortable ride- no complaints. Not for me, but no complaints. Oh, and my 'Atomic Engine Refinement-O-Meter' was on the fritz, so I couldn't get a reading vs. another car that I also wouldn't be buying on that singular deciding factor.

>>"you have to remember that the Mustang was basically just a Ford Falcon 2-door fast back with bucket seat option.... "<< Oh please. Originality: Challenger: 50% unoriginal Mustang: 40% unoriginal Camaro: 10% unoriginal. Like this matters. BMW churned out 99% unoriginal designs for 30-some years, but no one seemed to mind. I assume in that case it's because no one cares when the design is barely a design at all... kinda like how notebook paper has hardly changed in 30 years. Design itself: Camaro: A- Challenger: B+ Mustang: B+

Those are called 'dummy spots', a 99%-of-the-time non-functional swivel spot light that is the '50s version (along with tuck-n-roll & lake pipes) of the '90s ricer staples: body kit, hi-rise spoiler, fart can. I personally HATE dummy spots- the typical proceedure is: shave the door handles, all the emblems and a bunch of the trim, then slap these chromed zits on. Blech (IMO). And in the hen's teeth chance they're functional, I still hate them passionately.

Naturally, all that (upholstery & door panels) are not original, but they look nice, almost period and in excellent shape. Post more info when you get it.

>>"Two Packards, eh. I much prefer the one on the left."<< I love Packards of the '50-56 era- they built a slew of fantabulous cars. These 2 are both factory specials. That's the '52 Pan American on the left (1 of 6 built), indeed a stunning, gorgeous car, while the '54 Panther-Daytona (1 of 4) on the right is a supercharged fiberglas 2-seater that unofficially hit 131 MPH on the sand. I would love to see either or both in person, and would devote large blocks of drool-laced time to each. All 4 Daytonas exist, but I didn't know there were 6 Pan Americans originally- haven't heard much of them. Great to see at least one stately defying time. Put that Pan American up against the '07 Rolls drophead and see why I laugh ('Ho-Ho!!') at the pathetic Rolls ('Engine by BMW, body by International Harvestor') Thanks, PCS!

>>"The Ram, a supremely important part of the Chrysler lineup, is in need of an update and faces intense competition, especially from General Motors' new Chevrolet Silverado, Toyota's new full-size Tundra and Ford..."<< VERY funny! Loking forward to this: Ram set the truck segment on it's ear in '94... I would welcome another such upheaval just for the spectator sport of it.

I was at work until 9:30 this evening. Add to that the experience of a... fellow... hailing my truck down in a deserted industrial area, claiming 'that guy over there' had just stabbed him and could I give him a lift down the block? With my foot resting gently on the go-pedal of 605 ft-lbs of trq, I politely refused. No 6s in this era Buick- that's a Fireball straight eight. Buick built eights exclusively from '31-'60; until the A-Body Special appeared in '61. If you're worried about mileage, get a Chevette. Still, 1 book I have that lists MPG ranges for vintage cars says 13-17. Depending on state of tune & modifications, you might do better, you might do worse. I think it goes: "Your mileage may vary". In '50, the Special is a Series 40, the Super a Series 50... both had 3 VentiPorts per side (Roadmaster had 4). As was usually the case- the number of VentiPorts had nothing to do with the number of cylinders; Buick was not being so simplistic. Data plate underhood will have the model number stamped, such as '41D'. Special used a 248 I-8, 6.3:1 CR, 110 HP. Super used the 124 HP 263 with a sporting 6.6:1 CR. Specials with the DynaFLow raised that number to 120. These cars are not as heavy as one might think; even though there is literally less than 5 lbs of plastic in it (nirvana!), there's not much else. Special 4-dr sedan starts at the 3710 lb range, not many options to bump that up much at all in '50. >>"I'd be wary of those electrically-operated doors, too. They're probably going to be problematic. Can you get into the car if the solenoids fail? It'll also be harder to find maintenance parts for any 1950 car. Unless you have a lot of money and time to maintain a car that old, I'd advise against it. The Electra was made in an era when there were millions of B-and C-bodies on the road, all with a lot of similar parts. Mush easier to maintain."<< Modern solenoids are very reliable from all I've heard- they are not that expensive to replace if these are considerably old (say: around 10 yrs old). As far as maintenance parts go, it is almost entirely an issue of age- the '66 shares a very short list of interchangables with it's siblings- do not expect bearings & seals & ball joints to necessarily exchange with other '66 brothers. The '50 is getting pretty old, but get plugged in to the vintage enthusiast circle and you'll find all you need. Car look very nice from pics- I would check thoroughly for rust & rust repair, and I would want to know what was changed mechanically and if any removed original parts come with. I usually hate con't kits, tho this shape wears it well, IMO. Would be worth $ if you were to sell just that. As for the overall price, that's your call.

I forgot about this car- haven't seen pics of it in a long while. Did you take those pics, PCS? If so, did you take any of the Panther-Daytona??

>>"They need to talk about it as a better alternative to its foreign competition instead of comparing it to a Yukon/Tahoe."<< This is true to a degree, but more to the point; it highlights the grossly outmoded & incessantly prevailant automotive segregation the auto "journalists" CONTINUE to push... that foreign vehicles are predominantly compared to only other foriegn jobs, and domestics are only compared to domestics. Even a cursory glance at a run of issues from any given mainstream rag will show this handily. There is no legitimate reason to CONTINUE to segregate based solely on corporate origin. Another factor pointing to the "journalists" mindset is still buried in the tar pits with the skeletons of Chevettes & Citations.

Total segment volume minus model return buyers = the consumer volume willing to consider a different brand. Wouldn't this number be in the 100s of thousands??

I just saw somewhere in passing online tonight that the turd is averaging just over $5000 in incentives.... can that be accurate ?? I've still only seen 3; 1 of which was broken down on a highway onramp.

No; it's all the consumers in between the 2 camps they need to appeal to- trying to sway the blind loyalist is a waste of time.

>>"Just because I'm not a biased tool.... "<< Priceless.

>>"...lots of latitude to do whatever it takes to please customers no matter what"<< And that's EXACTLY how GM achieved 52-ish% of the market: the individual Divisions likewise set their own destinies via discretionary budgets and authoratative general managers. Hopefully this service model will be extended to the Core Divisions in other manners, and none too soon.

Sorry; I'm having difficulty getting past "iconic" and "fiat" in the same sentence.

All these comments about not being stylistically stellar and flashy-wheeled.... you guys need to take a look at the camry. Neither it's wheels or design are better than the Malibu and certainly did not pull any buyers in by themselves. There is no reason other than blind toyota loyalty not to cross-shop the 'bu from what I've seen.

I, too, really like this car. Still turns my head on the road, but of course- I much prefer the concept. Sales numbers may be down, but they're still respectible and worthwhile continuing, IMO. The market for 2-seaters is not one of rising numbers. I can't see clear to calling it a flop in any way, shape or form. Look at miata sales from '90 thru the early '00s- steady, fairly steep decline in numbers... have you ever heard "flop" connected with the miata?

No more sad IMO than mercedes and bmw building 'American' models. But of course you knew the meaning was: American-owned corporation.

Then you should definately use fiberglas filler; Bondo absorbs moisture.

OK again.... waitaminnit, that makes sense. I guess my question should be then: what was the corporate symbol when ChryCo was getting raped... I mean: in the "partnership" with mercedes??

Another thing- any filler-repairs: I would grind all the paint out in that area to 100% bare, shiny metal, rough up the surface with 36 or thereabouts grit, hit it with a quality primer, then fill with a fiberglas filler (shrinks a lot less). Then leave the filler alone for the paint shop to see. The current school of thought is primer UNDER the filler. You should definately talk to your paint shop first- they will want to know anything they spray over for compatability reasons and what type of filler you used. Your filler work may end up being stripped out by their method of paint removal.

Ahhh... OK, we're going from the current winged logo back to the Pentastar. I don't mind it from a corporate perspective, but I'd like to see the vehicles continue to use the winged original.

POR-15 is not meant for either 'seen' surfaces (ie: exterior sheetmetal) because it does not dry finish-grade smooth & it does not sand well. It is also UV-sensitive. Rustoleum works great... for up to 2 years max before it starts rusting thru. The best way to make a permanent paint repair is to sandblast (there's definate do's & don'ts here) the rust to 'white metal', then primer seal it, then use automotive-grade mixed paint. Kudos to you RF for undertaking the project- your best weapon is knowledge: learn about the upcoming task form multiple sources and don't panic or expect perefection. Keep us posted.

Anybody seen this "new logo"?? Welcome back, ChryCo!!