balthazar

>>"Chevy puts some exaggerated ads out there, too. They had a commercial showing a Silverado HD pulling a train. And train had several cars attached."<< A man has pulled a train car with his teeth- no CGI. I would think the HD absolutely could pull a few traincars weight-wise, tho the portrayal of doing so with it's tires on the rails is what's obviously a minor dramatization. But the toyota thing is blatantly physics-defying. Still, toyota-ists eat up false reality, so perhaps it's appropriate.

If the truck pulls 10,000 lbs INCLUDING itself and itself weighs 5,000 lbs, how believable is a commercial showing a metal shipping container that looks to be 40 FEET LONG getting pulled up?? Every container I've ever seen is made of steel, not aluminum, so the illusion is particularly doubtful and reeks of deception, regardless of how adamant toyota is that it's all true. For some reason I'm reminded of The Matrix where Neo slides across the rooftop, tethered to Trinity, then hops on the edge and holds her falling dead weight without going over. Looked real then, too. Meanwhile, Ford is advertising towing capacities of 24,500 lbs...

'65 Corvette convert, medium yellow, doing 75 on I-287. '70-72 Corvette hardtop, light blue, perfect, parking in driveway. '70-72 Corvette convert, med red, perfect, driving. '69-70 Olds Toronado, white, tired, on flatbed. '71 Riviera, gold, hauling ass on local street.

Well, push-starting was a feature of both manuals & many automatics since the beginning, so yea; I guess in that sense it was expected.

>>"GM has picked up the habit of putting dress up covers on their engines..."<< Here GM merely met the standard made commonplace by numerous foreign brands first. I agree- I hate every single one ever made- the idea blows; putting yet another square yard of wretched plastic into a car: here to thwart most efforts at self-service or inspection or just plain admiration/curiosity. >>"...which succeed only to:- (1) Make the build quality look cheap -- even Hyundai has nicer and higher quality (appearing) covers."<< Here we friggin' go again!! Know what's even worse? Even kia has a nicer finish on the underside of their ash tray inserts than GM! C'mon, GM- you're the worst at every single thing you've ever done since 1908 (butI'mstillabigbigfan!!)

Not American-assembled; from an American company.

B-59s, I believe, may have actually taken a harder hit than average, tho this is pure opinion (mine). Tho I love the radical design, they were quickly dated even by -say- '62... and by the time the gas crunch of '73-74 hit- I would have to guess the euthanasia was running rampant {shudder}. I bought my B-59 in '89, tho I was on the lookout for them a good 5 years earlier. Since then I've seen very very few, either 'in the wild', in junkyards or at car shows. I've been in 14 different junkyards, from a small 100-some car yard to 40+ acres: I can remember.... 7 B-59s and 6 of those yards have been crushed out since then. From shows maybe I've seen 3 more, plus a bunch of the 11 a buddy of mine owns. 'In the wild' or owned by individuals I've seen maybe 8, and 2 of them I bought (one since crushed). I've never seen one just driving down the street that I can recall. Sixty8- b-59.com is the clearinghouse for a bunch of fanatics (me included)... I think it paints an unbalanced picture as to how plentiful they are today. Look in Hemmings or autotrader and you won't see many. The BCA more often than not does NOT have one in the classified.... Still, 3% sounds low. Most 'non-especially-collectible' '50s cars were estimated to have a 10% survival rate in the early '90s... I don't think it's dropped that much lower since. The guy who put my B-59 in finish primer in '99 (&#036;h&#33;- has it been that long??) I just talked to last month- said he's been seeing more and more B-59s in custom publications. The values have tripled in the last 10 years... hopefully all this means that whatever ones are left, the majority will be saved.

That's a very interesting shot up top: the camlee's face is so arbitrary and unsubstantial- no chrome, no trim, squinty headlights... it just looks MUCH cheaper, like a model a whole segment below the Malibu.

UPDATE: Documented '53 Eldorado survivors are in the 20-25% range, but Cadillac researchers estimate the true number may be closer to 50%. New survivors continue to pop up, but many owners either have no knowledge of the database or wish to remain anonymous. Later is true of ANY registry of survivors. Current documented '57 Eldorado Brougham survivors: 65% Current documented '58 Eldorado Brougham survivors: 63% Current documented '59 Eldorado Brougham survivors: 42% Current documented '60 Eldorado Brougham survivors: 54% The '53 Corvette registry is HERE. In 1972-73, the Corvette community went about documenting all 300 of the '53s, and found them all. As of today, it looks like only 4 are known to be missing, but 10-15 (short on time here) have not been re-documented since the early '70s. Sooo, say 19 out of 301 (including the Motorama prototype) are gone or unknown and you have approximately 93% of the '53s remaining.

Yeah- I don't know what it is specifically, but it made me grin too. I've seen plenty of roll cages- that one from this distance sure looks cheesy. Styling was better than most in this class, tho I'd hope they would change out the plastic gridwork up front to anything more upscale looking. Wonder if they are going to abandon the project or build another. This was the only one, no?

I have seen registries for the '53 Corvette, '53 Eldorado, and the '57-58 Eldorado Broughams- all 3 are... IIRC, over 50%, and I believe the EB is in the area of 70%. Of course- those are high-priced specialty models... but still those numbers surprised me. Has any single '50s RPO GM year/model gone extinct? I sincerely doubt it.

No, because the '58 Firesweep was a 2bbl 350. However, Dodge & Plymouth also offered a 4bbl 350 (same engine besides the obvious/expected) in '58.

So tell us what you found already.

>>"Although, The front drums to disk brakes is a very good mod..."<< On some vehicles; sure, but in my experience: it's very unnecessary on this car.

I saw a new mercedes parke at the curb last month, unattended, and both driver-side 'parking' lights only were on, front & rear.

To each his own: I cannot vehemently campaign for factory stock RE a model PMD built 72K of, even tho I LOVE first gen GPs. And mild mods are fine IMHO if they are upgrading deficient components... but I have discussions all the time online with people wanting to swap out X-component because the perception is 'newer is better' and as a result 'older must suck and is now actually dangerous'. A very few things should be unilaterally upgraded: tires (there are those who will disagree strongly) and batteries. Everything after that is a judgement call from personal opinion. Now, I have performed/scheduled extensive mods for my B-59 because I want it to be ripping quick, and the factory powertrain /aftermarket would not allow it. When I started, the car hadn't appreciated in the 6 prior years since buying it. Since I started, it's more than tripled in #1 restored condition. Too late to turn back and I don't want to.

More info: Factory '63 rear ratios: 2.56, 2.69, 2.87, 3.08, 3.23, 3.42, 3.64, 3.90. Unfortunately, it takes 3 different carriers to make all these ratios work. I want to say the range for Carrier 1 is 2.56, Carrier 2 is 2.69 - 3.23 (I KNOW for a fact that 3.23s are the top cogs for Carrier 2) and 3.42 and above is Carrier 3. This means the ratio this GP would have with it's most-likely powertrain of a RHM 389 4bbl is 3.23s and the lowest gears you could put in that same rear would be either the 2.87s (special order gearset- not likely to be repopped today) or the 2.69s- can't recall for positive where the break is, but it's one of the 2. I don't know how much of a savings you'd see... If the calculations showed a decent MPG rise, low gear rears will be relatively inexpensive to find: everyone wants the 3.42 & up pumpkins.

>>"I understand your concern but the 200 4r's have held there own on heavily modified Buick GNX's I have seen them with a stock trans race in the high 12's."<< Oh; I am well aware of GNs, but those are blown cars: they tend to launch easier than a circa 450 TRQ @ 2500 car. My stock '64 GP with the 303/389, auto & 3.08s would overpower the open rear and do side-to-side alternating wheel burnouts. 200R-4 should be fine for a stock cruiser... I just have trouble leaving vintage iron alone underhood and always plan for more powertrain-stressing HP/TRQ.

you can also get pretty good every day transportation out of a Buick that will be far, far more affordable than a BMW.Yet people still want BMWs. I agree with Sixty8 here: "dead" is DEAD. The V-8 is far from dead. Tossing around the term in any other capacity and then arguing to 'prove' that 'point' is just poking a sharpened stick at people around you, looking for a reaction.

A co-worker had an early-'90s maxima that I rode in numerous times. I always felt the "4DSC" sticker in the quarter window was a big fat joke. Later, a friend's mother had a maxima... the one with the Neon-esque taillights with the black plastic surrounds (one prior to current one, I believe) and I climbed in; it was tremendously more cramped than my wife's Intrique of the time. The altima has pushed the maxima to the dusty back of the closet, but it's made more room for the g35. I agree; it should be made larger & softer to go more for the avalon segment rather than dilute the altima V-6/g35s impact. Or just dump it.

>>"1959 Buick which has a 6.0 liter V8"< It has a.... what ??? -- -- -- -- Let's see~ 363 CI = 6.0 liters 364 CI = 6.0 liters 365 CI = 6.0 liters 366 CI = 6.0 liters 367 CI = 6.0 liters 368 CI = 6.0 liters And depending on how loose you care to play with your rounding/marketing: 360 CI = 6.0 liters 361 CI = 6.0 liters 362 CI = 6.0 liters 369 CI = 6.0 liters 370 CI = 6.0 liters 371 CI = 6.0 liters Now.. wouldn't we all appreciate a MORE ACCURATE description? Of course we would. Thank you. >>"1959 Buick which has a 364 CI V8"< fixed. -- -- -- -- 12th sounds fine as far as I know; looking forward to seeing a roundy bunch of road runners. -- -- -- -- >>' 3700 miles, 48-yr old car, $1000 for gas...'<< You, sir, are a madman and my hat is off to you.

A 400 is just a bored 389- same motor for all intents & purposes. If you get the engine code, I will ID it. If it is a 400, I am sitting here wondering what trans it's hooked to. May already have a THM-400 then- giving room for most any option. I would not be comfortable with a 200R4- it's not the HP as much as the TRQ that's the issue. A few 'rubber-burning' tweaks and you're right at 400 HP anyway, but a stock 303 HP 389 is 430 TRQ (gross) as is. I prefer to over-engineer. 25 MPG is going to be impossible here- 6-spd would add what- 15% to MPG? My Cat was a 2bbl (hi-CR) 389 with the RHM and 2.67 gears. I tracked every tankful- over 2 years it averaged right about 15 (I have a half-ton right foot, tho). GPs ran 3.08 gears standard with automatics (BTW- this is one of the coveted racing rears, the '57-64 Olds/Pontiac units) and average weight is going to be around 4000 for a lightly-optioned car. MPG of that degree is going to only be the result of major powertrain re-engineering. I say F'it and enjoy the car. I do not know of any purpose-built FI units for real Pontiac engines, but new stuff is coming out all the time. A red '63 GP with a white interior is a fantastic color combo on a kick-ass car! Pics as soon as possible, please!

'64 test I have of a Cat with period skinny-assed bias plys did 60-0 in 145'- didn't 4W disc vettes in the '90s do it in 138' ?? I think 140' is camry-range; not that that's your benchmark but that's a modern car's stooping range right there. Put 8-lugs and Kevlar shoes on it- 8-lugs look better than any wheel going and are being re-popped. I've heard that you can get '90s Caprice spindles/discs to fit, not sure, but you're talking a major job and expense (not that the repop 8-lugs would be cheap) when you could already be driving with comparable results. Besides, modern tires will make a world of stopping distance by themselves. Best general advice I can give you RE a vintage cruiser is: never assume a more modern system is better just because it's newer- these old cars will surprise you once you check up on their numbers. The big cars were not de-engineered like the intermediates: big Pontiac's brakes are NOT deficient or undersized. 6-speed might well require more tunnel surgery than a THM-400, but that would be cool. Mating it to the 389 will be a bitch, tho. You lucked out with a GP- in '64 the starters are block-mounted. Other '64s (but not the GTO) and pre-'64s have trans-mounted starters. If this GP is a '63, you're probably looking at a custom mounting plate. What are you waiting for- get on Google and figure out the model year!

Just like insurance companies operate: OnStar worked for this guy from '02 thru '08... that subscription money is gone- it paid for the service. Damn greedy people. I could see a partial reimbursment for the option price had the service cut-off in -say- a year or 2... but 6 ?? It would be a nice jesture, but even half the option price x the 500K incompatable owners... that's $50,000,000! Are the owners of affected acura, audi, subaru and vws class-actioning their respective makes, too? As far as blocking GM from discontinuing analog broadcast? The FCC allows it and Verizon carries the signal- make sure you sue-happys go bang on their doors, too. Sh!t, GM gets banged for old tech and gets banged for new tech- never a frickin' break.

Only Ventura I would touch would be a F/S one: '60-61 or a Ventura packaged Cat between '62 and '67.