balthazar

>>"I was speaking only in terms of his direct involvement with GM and Cadillac. "<< I gotcha. Still, he was with Cadillac from '02-'17... I too wish it had been longer, tho many of his principals & practices were still being followed years & years after he left by those that knew him, and those that learned under those that knew him.

Looks like it side-swiped something, and mangled the fender-to-door gap enough that the door wouldn't open enough to get inside. The genius with the Snap-On crowbars was trying to force the trailing edge of the fender out so the leading edge of the door could pivot inward and the guy could get in. WTF he was doing going thru the bottom edge of the door is beyond me. One argument against ever-tighter panel gaps. :wink: Why the ass couldn't climb in the passenger side instead of watch the idiocy is beyond me, but then again... I can't explain the purchase to begin with.

H M Leland was born in Barton VT. Sixty8: >>"Henry Leland was such a pioneer he did a tremandous amount.... I know his direct involvement was short lived..."<< He began machine work in the 1870s, motor production in '96, founded Cadillac in '02, sold to GM in '09 (but continued to run the division until he), founded Lincoln in '17 (to produce aircraft engines), started car production in '20, sold Lincoln to FoMoCo in '22... that's over 50 years contribution to the industry (his early machine & manufacturing work certainly contributed to his expertise by '02). By '22 HML was 79, so he didn't really ever put his feet up, so to speak, and he died in '32. I've seen a pic of him posing with an early Cadillac in his last year of life. HML was directly involved in the industry for majority of his adult life; just about as long as anyone could in the same lifespan. I'd call that 'long-lived' if anything.

This car sure looks like it's built like sh!t: The 'sheetmetal' sounds like pie tins, looks absolutely paper thin & a piece snaps off totally unlike any metal I've ever worked. You'd think for $300K (or whatever) you could at least get some old world quality sheetmetal instead of reconstituted soda cans, but f**k no. Is anything new worth what you pay for it anymore???

You are joking, of course.....

Hey YD, don't you have to go wax the driveway or sweep the roof until 12:30 AM tonight? Catch that MASH rerun you've only seen 14 times? Anything?? :wink:

There are PLENTY of boards that sing high holy praises of other manufacturer's actions in this regard, meanwhile pointing at GM and triumphantly proclaiming 'See; this is why GM has fallen so far' at every single percieved shortcoming (nevermind the real ones). If this board is a lone voice against the witch-hunt examination & crushing damnation of GM by playing a little 'turn about is fair play' WRT other's problems, who --as a GM fan-- would object?

All done, hope I didn't cross up too many. Damn those old japanese POSs. Sixty-8, damned fine job- I'm exhausted. See you in the 11 o'clock hour tomorrow.

>>"Cadillac failed to build a serious rear-drive large car. They did well by making the CTS rear-drive, but that's not a large car. Cadillac has two larger car models, the front-drive DTS and the rear-drive STS, which actually isn't so large. What they need is to do a great rear-drive car with take-your-breath-away looks. One model, not two. But GM isn't willing to invest. The fact is Cadillac never recovered from the GM decision to go front-drive, a mistake they have yet to correct. "<< CTS: RWD SRX: RWD or AWD STS: RWD or AWD DTS: FWD XLR: RWD ESC: RWD or AWD I cannot agree that Cadillac has not reccovered from going FWD- how could I in light of the above? If the RWD chassis' were sh!t and the driving dynamics were sh!t, then I could, but that's clearly not the case. CMCD has recovered- the existance of 1 FWD model does not disprove that. >>"There was one exciting Cadillac design: the Sixteen show car. Of course, they aren't building it."<< And if a $120K Cadillac does not sell to expectations, would that fact be overlooked by the media, as is the case with the mercedes-bach, or would it be trumpeted in article after article how 'Cadillac still doesn't get it' or 'Cadillac faltering with another bad move'? A Sixteen-caliber vehicle will come, when the time is right. Now is not the time, yet.

The lil' bit you may have seen in your wam-bam tour of HI is the indicator iceberg tip of how surely you should return for a leisurely 2 weeks.

I disagree. If 2 cable s supports heavy loads, it is legitimate & logical to distrust half that much support in another vehicle; it has nothing to do with whether anothe vehicle's were broken, only that this vehicle doesn't measure up in this area.

sorry- I don't know the blue bucket and I still don't know the upper left motor. It's up for grabs, YD.

I dunno.... Clean - Helmet

Well isn't that interesting! What's the scoop on the Saturn concept? Year, notable features? I like the interior color scheme, tho I can't say why. It's not for me, but it sure is different and, I think, attractive in some way or other... maybe solely because it's different. It sure is earthy.... and pond-y. I never knew the quest had such a 'dustbuster van' dash span; it's huge!

My 4th is actually the upper left one.

Sure; the Fleetwood's gearing is instrumental in it's top end. And 140 is nearly 50% more than 100. My buddy's all-stock '53 Merc with 125 hp (3-spd/3.90 gears) would not exceed 97 MPH no matter how many times we tried. Cars in the late '40s-early '50s frequently had gears around 4.00:1. I do not know if its valid to compare the 100 hp of the Plainsman WRT top speed when it is driven by electric motors... but if it was a 100-hp IC-driven car, then 160 is way too high for the power.

I know 3 of them, but the 4th is stumping me.

160 mph?? Tucker hit 132 at Bonneville with 166 HP and it was very aerodynamic also (cd: .27). More 'top end' gearing and the Tucker was theoretically capable of 150, but I cannot see 100 HP hitting over 110. The 'competitive market' sounds like spin: late '40s was an unprecedented seller's market; it had to primarily be price than killed the Plainsman's prospects. Well; that and looks.

364 musta been bumped up quite a bit: last year the (non-SS) 6.0 was 300hp / 360@4000 trq, whereas the 496 was 330hp / 450@3200 trq. That's a huge hill to climb for the 364. The SS/Denali VortecMax 364 was 345/380- still well shy of the 496's output (trq). Sure the Duramax trumps them (and everything else) handily, but isn't it in the neighborhood of $7500 after Jan 1? It's $6K or so now; not everyone can swing that.

In '06 the 8.1L was available across the board in the 2500HD and 3500 trucks. Was the 8.1 (496) discontinued for '07??

Oops: the tundra is so butchy & tough looking , I only looked at 2500-3500-series specs -- the 1500 does indeed offer a 5'9" shortbed.But that tundra still looks to have a foreshortened bed via the 'quarter panels' on the box- anyone see any specs yet?

Damnit, that's it. Aluminum body & frame. 100-hp Franklin air-cooled flat 4 powered an electric generator which powered 4 electric motors, one at each wheel. Projected price also didn't help the concept: $5000 (top-shelf Chevy sedan was about $1200).

The Sierra/Silverado short bed measures 6'5", but take another look at the sheetmetal between the front of the tundra's bed & the rear wheelwell- I've never seen a truck with such a short span there. HAS to be much closer to a 4.75' bed than a 6' bed.That's a major F-up.

Where is the DuraMax? Corvette is absolutely 'regular production'. Why is the bmw 3L on there twice- that's the same engine but with a turbo. Nonsense.

How, exactly, is the article "interesting"?