balthazar

>>"My S-10 doesn't have a B-pillar ... so is it a hardtop? "<< No- it's a coupe technically (no quarter windows), but the fact that it's a truck with an open bed supercedes that, so it's a... truck. Even if the S-10 had frameless glass, it would not be a hardtop- it's window/pillar configurations that determine the classification.

white over black '59 Cadillac deville convertible.

>>"What I find funny is many of the people telling me I'm "petty" or stupid for caring about such a detail are the same ones who pick appart a cars interior with an electron-scanning microscope. I have never seen/heard so much PMSing over the buttons, switches, grain of the pleather on the dash or fit & finish of the airbag than on here."<< Damn- one of the most true truisms EVER written here. My distaste for a Camaro B-pillar just quadrupled.

>>"Oh, and just in case you think that I'm bashing GM without cause---they're currently handing out documents to dealers that breakdown the top 15 markets in the world, trying to indicate that GM is 'Still #1' overall, if you leave out the rest of the world! In a nutshell, that's the type of shortsighted, crappy, misleading spin that gets them believing their own BS. "<< Ohhhh, right; you mean the exact same "shortsighted, crappy, misleading spin" the media uses to proclaim toyota is the global production leader after a mere 3 months. >>"A hard charging, focused company (that just happens not to be 'merican) is kicking ass and taking names internationally, growing from a marginal producer..."<< How can you say they were ONLY "marginal" in the beginning??? That almost smacks of shortsighted, crappy, misleading spin, my friend. And as far as lexus & infiniti go- they had no abhorrant history before they were poured out of a beaker- the pre-intro speculation was just that.

Synopsis of push-starting a B-59? "Place control shift lever in Neutral (N) until car speed reaches approximately 15 MPH, then shift into Low (L). Continue to increase car speed until engine cranks. After engine starts, return control lever to Neutral (N) for engine to warm up. It is safer to push car than tow it." TwinTurbine's L is a plantery gear, independant of the 'D' stator blades...ie: TT cars do not accelerate thru L when in D. Original shop & owner's manuals are n eBay frequently- usually $15 for the OM and maybe 45 for the SM.

>>"How is it possible to push start an automatic pre-59? What is the mechanical explanation to this?"<< Not an expert here, but I've both read and unintentionally experienced this: pre-'59 HydraMatics still have a rear pump in the trans that enable's push-starting. >>"Could you push start a Dynaflow? "<< Yes: the directions are in the B-59 owner's manual.

Attempting to predict the impact strength of a given bodystyle over another is like trying to accurately guess the .cd of a car by looking at it.

I can't agree with you about the styling, Reg- it's clean and aggresive at the same time- a nice combo. That 'pancake' roof also really ups the sporty factor; otherwise it could get visually ungainly quick. The nicest-looking wagon available, IMO; not 'over-the-top' at all.

moltar : >>"Hardtops are neat, I'm not sure how popular they would be today when all cars have A/C..."<< As you are fond of saying: 'It's not 1970 anymore'. In other words, hardtops are not about ventilation in 2009, but styling. A/C has nothing to do with the issue. Chris : I for one would value learning what specific engineering & cost hurdles would oppose an affordable hardtop today. Again- when designing a brand new unique non-convertible shell- making it a hardtop from the start should not be a tremendous deal- the same degree of testing/validation should still be ahead of it. But in this case, with a convertible on deck too, the structural neccessities of the convert should likewise satisfy all design requirements of the hardtop in one shell/ validation process. What am I missing here??

Yeah, most all post-war 2-dr sedans had roll down rear windows until the advent of circa 1970 'entry-level' cars, the Plymouth Duster & Ford Maverick (pivoting quarter windows) being 2 such. Fixed quarter windows (no roll, no pivot) came about shortly after- the '73 A-Body models had them. Obviously, I am not including foreign makes here. Sixty8- I believe it's the taller roofline on the sedans that prevents the quarter window from retracting 100%, because of course the hardtops' do.

Not sure about chassis's for B-O-C, but all sheetmetal & all interiors were changed for '58. Even some glass features changed (B & O dropped the 3-piece backlight). Additionally, many other features, such as transmissions & brakes were also new in some instances... but in general it could be said, yes: the '58 Buick-Olds-Cadillac were more refreshes than complete redesigns. However, in that everything you see from '57-58 is markedly different, I would still call them all 1-year only designs. '58 has another distinction: the last year you could push-start a GM automatic car.

Here's TWO who care. But like I said; not to the point of refusing to buy a Camaro if I really wanted one. When I saw the rear end of my '59 Buick sticking out from a East PA carport, I told my buddy, 'If it's an Invicta 2-dr (which is only a hardtop in the Invicta line), it's mine.' If it had been a LeSabre 2-dr sedan (with a B-Pillar), I would not have bought it. Not interested in a 4-dr of any bodystyle. But there are a million other compromises in modern cars that I have minor issues with. I have a different set of values when it comes to modern vehicles. I think the '09 Camaro flat kicks ass design-wise, it's a powerhouse design with a metric ton of attitude, and if in the market for a modern coupe, I'd buy it regardless of it's bodystyle. Still... it should be a hardtop, IMHO. BTW- adding the required structural steel to a hardtop version meet the same rigidity of a pillared coupe should not add more than 150 lbs at the most.... not the upwards of 600 lbs some here seem to think will be involved. Don't forget that the B-Pillar steel is still included, just in a different location.

As a general rule of thumb, a house's vintage is always a compromise. Newer homes of course have better insulation, better windows and higher capacity electrical & plumbing systems. Of course those things can always be added to older homes and the cost is not as great as you'd think. What can't be added to newer homes is the better construction quality and quality of many materials. Older homes (here I'm talking late 1800s into the 1950s) are substantially better built, structurally. From the '60s thru today, construction quality has steadily gone downhill, ESP since the '80s. In the last 7 years I've observed construction on homes costing up to $4M, and most crews today are marginal craftsmen at best and surprisingly many are just clueless hacks. I've seen some sorry sh!t, let me tell you. Thank God for increasingly stringent building codes or we'd be back in the 1700s.

It disappoints me, but would not make-or-break my purchase, were I itching to buy one. But the so-strong 'modern '69' design of the '09 makes me seriously wonder what the literal / engineering reasons are for making the Camaro sedan rather than a hardtop. Cost & structural rigidity don't seem like they'd amount to close to a prohibitive amount with a brand new shell- just add the appropriate bracing. Side impact is another issue, tho.

>>"every journey starts with a first step."<< It's just a source of amazement to me: hyundai builds sh!t for 85% of it's short history here, posts a year or 2 of decent product and everyone rushes forward with pursed lips to accept the next hyundai like it's made of gold. GM build excellent cars for 85% of it's history, runs thru a relatively short span of rough times, and people rush forward to redesign products that aren't even out yet. No credit for GM's recent big steps, but much love for a brand with one of the most abominable past records in the industry.

scharmer05- a question: why quote the entire opening post (including sig) when you are post #2?? Some of us schlubs still have dial-up connections (imagine!) and the needless repetition only slows page loading down. My family moved when I was 10, to a completely rural township: 3-4 miles away were 2 towns of about 2100 each. I have also lived in the city (Detroit & Baltimore)- and there is no comparison: give me rural life anyday. Right now I am in the suburbs and it's OK, but if I could snap my fingers I'd move farther out into the boonies.

>>"remember, not too long ago "Made in Japan" implied cheap & crappy."<< That was AT LEAST 25 years ago; for Hyundai (assuming you accept all the recent supposed quality allocades) it was more like 3 years ago. Feel free to gamble your money, I've learned the hard way, otherwise.

>>"Call me when the real cars are ready."<< They're out in your barn, waiting. I know mine are.

Ah; sorry, I thought you were referring to the Grand Am 'Camino pictured earlier. As far as the body designation goes, apparently the '82 & up Bonneville was on a stretched version of the GP A-Special chassis... I had misremembered it was the same and thought the LeMans had changed to a 'G' also. LeMans would still be an 'A' in this era.

old Lotus Esprit '49 Nash Ambassador Super 2-dr fastback '50 Merc coupe, chopped '70 Chevelle SS454 hardtop '69 Sedan deVille 4-dr hardtop '50 Buick Super 2-dr sedan '51 Ford 2-dr sedan '66 Pontiac Catalina 4-dr sedan (with the rear door handles shaved )

>>"Wow...I didn't know that a B-body El Camino existed outside of my imagination. Sweet."<< It doesn't; that's a LeMans-based 'El Camino' which was updated with a 1980 Grand Am nose. I am pretty certain the LeMans/Grand Am is a G-Body.

Tucker was working on a hydraulic valve system in '47. There was not enough time in his timeframe to work thru all the engineering- ended up going with a ready-built motor with conventional valvetrain. Had the business end of the venture not gotten in the way, this discussion could be going down an entirely different route.

>>"Ferdinand Porsche was first to create the idea of a hybrid"<< ??

Unlike those that assure others of a vehicle's wonderous features with overwrought, overdramatic & unbelievable adjectives for miniscule differences, I actually bring 18 (11 professionally, 7 part-time) years of graphic design experience to the table for my 'real solid testimony'. There are established and recognized text formatting and presentation guidelines, practices that enhance and enable clarity, communication and intuitivity of information. I clearly pointed out where honda fell flat in that respect, and it's not personal opinion but industry standard I'm relaying. Go re-read my post and look at the pic: at the very least you should be able to see that white digital numbers on a flat black background is hardly what most would call "detailed" and the inconsistancy and ambiguity of numerous points of design in the center screen primarily conveys uncertainty rather than "expensive" development. Example again- what is the "14.2" or the tiny 'A' indicating? At least if the fuel/temp readouts had a different color baseline so, as with the fuel reading, you'd know immediately if it was completely full or completely empty, but all the honda driver gets is a fat white line on a flat black background that he has to contrast with the temp reading to discern which it is. It's crap, graphically-speaking. You can choose not to see these aspects because of the "incredible" 'H' on the hood all you want, but at some point one would think you'd choke on your own saliva and consider for even a split second that the vehicles you favor are not, in fact, touched by the hand of God.

No one but me cares, but as Amateur Caretaker for the Automotive Past... 1961 Cadillacs were powered by 325 HP 390 CI V-8s. No such animal as a 398 American V-8, tho a .030 overbore of the 390 would equal 396 CI. I doubt they were getting that specific, but even if so, they're still wrong.>>"happily on pump gas, never stalling... Caddy acts as though it will run 80 mph all day long. And it pretty much does... it's not hard to keep it on center... Chassis stiffness is remarkable..."<< Always with an undertone of 'I thought this would be impossible; it's OLD for chrissakes!'