balthazar

>>"Why not make one STRONGER cable rather than two weaker ones? It seems you're assuming that all cables are the same strength."<< It's a plausible idea, but are you not likewise assuming that the ONE cable is stronger than the TWO in this case? If this was a domestic truck, the mass opinion would be 'cost cutting!!', not a benefit-of-the-doubt assumption. Knowing automakers, it is logical to assume at least some degree of inferiority, pending proof otherwise. RE: one cable- There remains the possibility that very heavy loads will unevenly stress both the tailgate itself and the hinge points, whereas 2 cables will distribute the load evenly. There is no question it's a compromise (for the dual-action tailgate, which IMO is useless).

I dunno, maybe a Porsche 911/Carrera with the power spoiler. My automotive 'closet' is pretty empty; everything's spread out all over the floor as it is.

And here is comes, creeping; the derision: >>"why cant it have the LS2!!!! it wouldve been perfect then."<< >>"the availability of a manual immediately..."<< Oops: {the manual option will be added after the car is launched.} >>"That thing is gonna chug fuel like nobody's business, espeically at almost 4000lbs. ...DOD would have been nice"<< >>"it should have at least 400 hp and 400ftlb"<< >>"The hood vents give the face of the car an Aztek-like feel."<< >>"Apart from the odd nose..."<< So far- my theory seems to be holding water....

I know!! they're almost as bad as those that never buy vintage and always blather on about how great modern cars are, yet have zero basis for comparison except their father's or uncle's 30-yr old stories. I'm not going to damn the G8 until after I see it in the steel, but I am not confident in the set-up. >>"Imagine the complaining that went on by 50 year olds in the 60s whom missed their Pontiac Fire Chiefs."<< There wasn't any, because Pontiac innovated and progressed and was the class leader in the '60s in numerous categories. Does the G8 achieve this level of success, too? We'll see. Tee-hee; "Fire Chief".

Land Rovers are worth waiting for... in the waiting rooms of Land Rover service departments... unless you don't value that sort of thing.

Many of the above positive, optimistic opinions are the Exact Same Thing that was said prior to the GTO unveiling. Then the optimism (>>"finally be a more mainstream domestic sedan unbeatable in just about every category"<<) soured quickly into whining & nitpicking (>>"whaa- no NAV!!!"<<) until the Goat was basically panned. I fear the exact same scenario is falling into place. Hope I'm wrong and it sells like free sex. moltar- those who think Pontiac only means FWD rentals will NEVER buy Pontiac- to attempt to appeal to them is pure folly, a complete waste of time. It would be like BMW trying to appeal to me. However, there are those with disposal income that WOULD buy a tasteful homage to the the most popular era in collector cars today. Tastefully done, (aka the Mustang), a car that carries subtle design cues of an earlier generation is heritage-true. No one slams lambo for aping & raping the same design that came out in 1970- it can be done and done well (not that lambo has achieved this IMO). I love how in some instances it's 'being true to the heritage' and in others it's 'stuck in the past'.

>>"P.S. For those who were afraid we'd have a repeat of GTOness with the lack of a moonroof. Don't worry. "<< I find it incredible to believe the lack of a moonroof had anything to do with the level of acceptance the GTO met.

Well, yeah; sure.... but -umm- besides that... :wink:Seriously, I agree 100% with ocnblu's views above. Would you prefer 'please-look-at-me' fender vents (aka: the m3) instead ??

Not liking those teaser pics at all. Without a doubt, there will be major division on this car once the official pics/in-the-steel viewings are in, IMO. Not far enough- how many even here have campaigned for a 'new Pontiac look'-- this definately isn't it; very 'G6 grilles on a GP'. I understand the 'stopgap' issue, and I hope for Pontiac's sake I am in a strict minority, but I have a strong gut feeling here....

Some of them, sure, as transportation (and here I am not talking about only GM). But late model cars are not objects of outright lust for me- I cannot think of anything made in the last 30 years that makes me pitch a tent. Also true: a great quantity are so utterly.... disposable, IMO.

I also see that the Edge won front, side & rear crash test ratings (was a ticker item on the news last night)- any mention of that in the article? >>"...lack of any standout surprise-and-delight features {Edge}"<< So where is the list of 'surprise-&-delights' for the other 3?? That the hyundai doesn't explode into pieces like the cop car at the end of the Blues Brothers? Love how M/T goes to CR for verification of what they are too lazy or unable to investigate for themselves. Since when do magazines lean on other magazines for material? Again- if there is no clear cut winner, forcing a ranking for no reason at all other than to feed the Pavlovian reader's expectation undermines your credibility.

American automotive manufacturers did not use FI prior to 1957, when Pontiac & Chevrolet introduced their systems (Chrysler/ Dodge/ DeSoto/ Plymouth intro'd FI in '58). That would not be "decades" before the '60s by my calculator. The Ford Granada/Mercedes issue was a very lame advertising joke: the entire premise was based on looks, and there simple wasn't anything to it other than the same paint color & photographic angles. The Seville was indeed a successful entry into the 'international-sized' luxury car ideal, but I should also correct the notion that the 1st gen Seville rode on a "stretched Nova chassis", because it did not at all. Hyperv6 is pretty much spot on with his facts: Pontiac indeed made strides towards more 'European' sporting cars with the OHC Sprint 6 Tempest/LeMans beginning in '66-67, and the same powertrain in the Firebird, the stripped-down GT-37 of '70-71, the decidedly European Firebird redesign of '70 and the 1st gen GA of '73-75. A lot of the features mentioned were in production on European cars before American, so to make a point to incorporate numerous examples of these features could be called 'going European', I suppose. What needs to be recognized here is that both the American car and the European car have steadily moved toward a central design about halfway between the 2; the European car has become far more advanced, safe, larger, luxurious and powerful than it ever was in the '60s as a direct result of competition with American cars.

Actually, I have see an article that supported that also; they changed all dino fluids for synthetics (engine, trans, axle) and did pick up a few measurable HP. Not enought to bother draining everything one Saturday, but if you were rebuilding a car from scratch, it's worth considering, IMO.

>>"...magazines just about always vote for sporty. "<< >>"...the Ford, despite being heavy had some of the best acceleration times and the best handling test times. It had I think the highest skidpad figure."<<

What "need" ?? Who decided there is any "need" ????? The world won't end if the article finishes with 'it was too close to decide- they all have pluses & minues, it's up to the individual.' Ranking where there is no clear ranking is forcing the issue and calling personal bias's into play- who wants that??reg : Egg-zactly. But to 'today's generation', the bottom line is: '#1 wins and the rest suxs!'. Just saw a piece today on the mercedes/mclaren slr: tiny 5.5L V-8 coupe with a full carbon-fiber body (what's not plastic) yet it weighs about 700 lbs more than a Corvette (slr: 3800)! WTF??

>>"As a result, a suspended sentence is likely say analysts. Lawyers for Mr Chung have argued that the chairman should be granted a suspended sentence because of the damage a jail term might mean to South Korea's economy."<< Amazing: embezzles $110 million and he gets to keep his job... where he embezzeled from. See what the U.S. manufacturers have to compete with??

That's moltar for you- always looking out for our less-fortunate neighbors .... :wink: According to the Standard Catalog of American Light-Duty Trucks, GMC indeed did not observe yearly model changes, ie: they did not neccesarily make changes at the 'normal' new year intro time. GMC also has not supplied VIN number ranges, so that is out as an ID source. As far as I see, GMTG74 is right: the best indicator is the lack of bumper bullets pointing to '59. In '59, there was a Series 101 'Panel', and a 'Panel DeLuxe', 1/2-ton with a 114" wheelbase. There was also a Series 253 1-ton with a 135" whlbse 10-ft Panel and Panel DeLuxe. I would suspect a NAPCO 4x4 would be on a 1-ton chassis, but in the pics it's without a doubt a 114"-er. Actual series number for the 1/2-ton is P1001 (not P101). 1-ton series number is P2503.

Tho at times your posts were a bit over the top, it was clear it was passion that drove them there, and no one should condemn that. I also enjoyed reading your posts- good luck and do indeed lurk & post here in the future. Peace, brother.

>>"When it came out it offered a strong powertrain, functional interior, and extremely innovative and useful bed. This holds true today. It's quality may not be all there, and its looks aren't by any means it's strong point, but deserves respect. "<< Powertrain was only comparable, as was interior functionality. What exactly about the bed was "extremely innovative", because usefullness is only, again, comparable, not superior. Factor in lesser quality & reliability, and far less in the way of powertrain & configuration choices and you have an inferior competitor: not sure how lavish we should rightfully be with 'respect'.

Not selective: summarizing. Witness: >>"As much as I like Pontiac.... I have a feeling we're looking at a GTO redux (and I loved the GTO, design and everything)...it {G8} has a tight, compact body... and the interior is amazing. In contrast about the G8 you also said: >>"Even the name sums up the car: boring, derivative, cheap, lame, V8."<< So again: which is it: tight, compact, loved (ala the GTO's 'everything') & amazing.... or boring, derivative, cheap & lame?

>>"PAG contributed 30 Billion in revenue to Ford "<< Revenue is irrelevant to the bottom line; what was PAG's profit?

>>"Have you ever thought or considered these vehicle brands might have a global presence and I focus my comments on Volvo, Mazda and LR. The are a lot bigger than you might think."<< I love how you always know what I think. Global brands, you say? Shocking news. However, the article focuses on the U.S. market, not the world market. If Merc is discontinued, I'm sure the diversion of the billions to buy the underperforming, money-sucking euro brands had nothing to do with it.

You've only see half of one fender. "loved design & everything, tight, compact, amazing >< boring, derivative, cheap" Any chance the appearance of the word "PONTIAC" on the car is causing your bi-polarism?

These figures are sales by brand. Why is scion included with toyota but not lexus? What possible significance would there be to what brands were in which dealerships when reporting sales volumes; it's completely immaterial. Maybe if there were per/dealership numbers, but we don't have those, nor would they be of any significance. You may love the concept, but it's fudging, plain & simple.>>"Just as Ford has historically reported out on their Lincoln/Mercury Division."<< Funny how I've never seen those numbers combined, even all the way back to '58's M-E-L, yet independant Merc & Lincoln numbers have always been readily available. >>"It is not out of consiteration that GM may eventually combine thier BPGMC retail division when they report those sales."<< GM may, but I doubt it. Pontiac-GMC has been merged for a decade now, and we've yet to see combined numbers.

CSpec= >>"Why should Volvo, Land Rover, Aston, and Mazda (which is highly regarded) disappear? They sell well.... "<< Sales are dropping for the first 3, investment is draining considering they are all limited niche brands, and the market is in a glut. Mazda has the worst ownership retention of any make short of izusu; all too soon everyone that would consider a mazda will have tried and rejected it: the future there is not bright. I agree with Ven- dump those he listed and good riddance. We all know what a handful the chinese junk is going to be to deal with in the market, if they ever make it here (and here's hoping they don't).