balthazar

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"?

The name & the price seems awfully familiar circa a year or more ago, but the pics are different if I'm recalling correctly. Yeah- that'd be a literal Disneyland for me. I dream & daydream about getting my hands on a major stash like this. I would take a sabbatical from work and sell off this stuff daily, assuming I could keep from just sitting in these vehicles for hours & hours with a big sappy grin on my face. A friend of mine is about 75, has about 250-300 cars plus many many parts... I'm hoping he'll 'toss me a bone' in his will. Which reminds me; I haven't dropped in in many months (eyes tomorrow's schedule).

>>"I'll say one thing for the CrewMax, the D-pillar doesn't look to be as ridiculously thick as the Mega Cab's."<< Check out the overly-thick pillar on the "double cab" tundra (of course, you meant C-pillar, not D).

Good news! With Bricklin gone, perhaps these scrapings from the automotive garbage disposal will never make it here.

What is that; a 4-foot bed?!?!

Wow- that's a good one; never seen it befur. Something about it beyond the 'torpedo back' says Nash to me- not sure what or why, tho it has Lincoln-esque door pushbuttons. The 'transom' windows are quite unique.