balthazar

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.

Every single feature adds to the MSRP and the poundage. This is one more step closer to the 'foam-fill' from Demolition Man.

Well, AMC was certainly way ahead of the curve WRT AWD in cars. Whether they could've lasted independantly until the current AWD trend is another question.

Performance: a Regal GS is Buick's mid-sizer- let's put it up against Buick's mid-sizer of yore:'02 Regal GS 3.8 SC, 4-spd auto with TC -- 0-60 : 6.5 sec. '67 GS 400, 3-spd auto -- 0-60 : 6.0 sec. '02 Regal GS 3.8 SC, 4-spd auto with TC -- 1/4-mile : 15.0 sec. '67 GS 400, 3-spd auto -- 1/4-mile : 14.7 sec. By far the bulk of the handling issue (I don't have an apples-to-apples comparison here) is the tires on the '67; modern tires provide a world's different capability; I know- I've put modern performance radials on '60s cars and hammered on them. There is no inherant deficiency in the design of a '60s Skylark; the GS referenced above featured a factory near-1" front roll bar and a 4-link rear with 4-whl coils. Weight distribution is 56/44%. With equal tires the GS would out-handle the Regal GS, even if it were RWD. Comfort is subjective: personally I find '60s GM bucket-seat interiors (and here my experience is Pontiacs, which I believe have much more supportive seats than Buick) very comfortable, not to mention refreshingly spacious. Most creature comforts of today were around in the late '60s- except for audio systems, everything I need in a vehicle. This, also is subjective. I'm not knocking the Regal GS or the idea that there have been real world improvements in modern cars, but let's not fall into the trap that all modern cars are better in every way than all vintage cars because time has passed; the facts do not back that up in many cases.

'SportCombi': when McDonald's substitutes Gatorade for your Pepsi in your combo meal.

I would not want to haul 5000 lbs (6200 loaded??) with only 145 HP. Clamshells are right about 229-230"- real monsters.

Sorry- IMO both those hardtops blow. The original Pontiac concept was worlds' better than both- who would choose a 'station wagon' look over a fastback on a sports car?? Costing $2500 doesn't help in the least, either. I cannot see these being even remotely popular.

Interesting idea, worthy of further debate IMO, tho of course there are loopholes in the above proposed (using other's licenses, counterfit bar codes), potential problems that could be eliminated with some sort of fingerprint ID system. Another loophole is pre-system vehicles. At the rate that cars are increasingly doing the driving for you, in 20 year's time this proposal will be completely unneccesary.

Try: Mike's F-body (AZ) : 602-276-1522 (all F-Body NOS) Bill's Birds (NY?) : bb-ny.com / 631-667-3853 Kurt Kelsey (IO) : 641-648-9086 (general PMD NOS- primarily '35-68 tho) firebirdtaclub.com CPR (CA) : 714-245-9800 / pontiacparts.net Joe Curtis (NC) : 828-298-8304 (general PMD NOS) The above comes from a recent Smoke Signals issue. You can also try the classified boards at classicalpontiac.com and performanceyears.com and yearone.com (they carry some NOS stuff). Happy hunting!

>>"Front benches are rare for the same reason casette players are rare in new cars. "<< They're not making bench seats because buckets provide better sound quality???

>>"Because putting a seat there is: a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there"<< No moreso that the center rear seat position, yet we don't see a strong trend for rear seat consoles.... >>"b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them"<< The dash is in front of the driver and RH passenger also, isn't it? A center air bag (or an enlarged RH airbag) could easily be installed for this position. >>"c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors)"<< Peripheral vision WRT sideviews is no more obstructed due to a center front pass than a RH passenger. 'Over the shoulder' vision would be tho, tho I do not believe this is a regular criteria for seating layout. I do not see 'driver room' as a valid reason except in the compact class; large cars should not dangerously cramp the driver. >>"d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space"<< Any cubbyhole for CDs can be located elsewhere, likewise any features/controls that are 'ergonomically' paced in the front center seating position (the console). >>"e) is extremely low-demand. People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan. Why? Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle."<< This is true (6 passengers need cargo volume)- but a full-sized car should be able to accomodate as much cargo as a comparitively-sized SUV. Many 7-pass SUVs have a disproportionally small & compromised cargo areas. IMO, the primary reason for the disappearance of the full-sized 6-passenger car is that 2) the true full-size car is almost gone itself and there is far less room in the midsize car for this layout, and the #1 reason: It's percieved as 'old fashioned' and 'not sporty'. I too wish there were more bench seat options available- in the mid-size class I find the ubitquitous console intrusive and a waste of space. It's fine in a full-sized car however.

toyota does not make $20,000 profit on a $20,000 car. It will take more far more than 21,500 vehicles to make $430,000,000 back. At $1500 profit per vehicle (hypothetical), it would be 286,000 vehicles. Facts are fun. Agreed, tho; the amount is not much in the grand scheme of things.

If you crop in on #2 some, that's my pick.

The recent about-face WRT the steady decline in sales & segment marketshare from '79 thru circa '00 is a fairly major accomplishment (a 'big corner' IMO).

Wacko message board poster compares author to douchebag.

For the record, tailgated hatchback sedan also done before: Saw one of these in a junkyard last year; a really clever bit of engineering.

What would the German's 2005 volumes be if there was no lexus? The answer is pure conjecture at this point, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd be much higher. If there was no lexus and Cadillac was still where they were in -say-1995, mercedes or bmw may have actually broken the segment volume record, and assumedly, their respective profit records. Then again, they may not have wanted the problems such rapid production expansion would have exponentially brought to them. As it is, Cadillac has turned a big corner and bmw/mercedes are 2nd/4th in sales- certainly not bad... but not as good as it could be. Lincoln is just a sad shadow of itself.

Been done long before either the Holden or mazda, and it's still a great idea. Pontiac Ventura had a version too, don't recall if Olds or Buick did.

I missed these shots if they were linked to earlier. 'bu looks good- it really does have a substantial, solid appearance to the proportions. But what jumps out at me the most is the SS concept grille- makes me again wonder if there's any possibility the next Impala will pull strongly from the concept.

A press release.... for a $400 floormat & exhaust tip option.... on a $70,000 vehicle???

Is bmw, mercedes and lexus so completely conceited and self-centered as to NOT consider the competition?? Did bmw and mercedes likewise ignore lexus 15-10 years ago? How did that work out? 5 years ago there was no Cadillac threat to consider. In the meantime bmw and mercedes both have seen notable tarnish on their respective stars (idrive, numerous reliability issues, polarizing styling...). If they're not paying attention, they sure as hell should be.