balthazar

The Enclave is, I would say, unprecedented in GM history on 2 counts- it's closer to the concept than a production model ever has been, and the production model is hotter than the original concept (the Centieme). I like the front clip of the Centieme very much; as aaaantoine stated- it's very slick, but the rear half looks almost.... Swedish in a way- not to my fancy. The Centimeme overall 'perches' on it's tires almost insect-like. Exterior of the Enclave is more muscular, more interesting and more upscale- well done. Interior is terrifically nice- only thing I could possible critique is: I would like to seem some stylistic attention paid to the pedals again- no one does that anymore.

I believe the intent with changing the taillights out was to increase the visual impression of length/smooth out the sideview. The beltline trim accomplishes the same thing as well. But the 'Pontiac-ness' of the lights on a Cadillac is a downgrade- the original wrap-arounds are classically clean, without the now-ubitquitous & cumbersome 4 or 5 different-sized blocks of amber & white. The headlights were swapped out also (the underlying turn signals are no longer there), and the cornering lamp assembly not only looks non-stock, but fake- not sure what's going on there. Tho it's tough to see clearly- the headlights are also not an improvement- the now added body-color around them makes them swim a bit & look more arbitrary in placement. I would much prefer the factory units. razor- I agree- there definately is some still great sheetmetal in the mid-'70s, tho overall the cars are too new as objects of my ownership affection. 1st gen Sevilles are boxy, tho everything else was too in this era. It still has really nice, solid surface treatments and tight lines; that taper to the rear is now so nice to see. The Elegante with the painted steel roof and the less-clunky real wire wheels is the best:

Along similar numerology lines: on 6/6/06 my wife bought three items in the supermarket that cost $6.66. I've been tracking my fill-ups for over 10 years and have not had a back-to-back identical gas stop that I recall.

>>"freakin alien bitch bomb "<< <-- LOL! I worked with a lesbian some years back, we got along really well to the point we called each other 'brother' & 'sister'. I haven't had known regular contact with any others.

Camino- except for the taillights- that's all Seville in the rear clip. GV is a MUCH larger car, tho sectioning would at least make it possible. Razor- within the '75-80 period, I do like the early Sevilles... but in general yes; they are too boxy & new for me. I could own one happily tho. Rule of thumb is generally pre-'73 for me.

Body lines on the 1st gen are so sweet, tho I do not think the taillights are an improvement over stock in the least. Vogue yellow/whitewalls have to go.

i believe that the idea is, that the driver should have their hands on the wheel, therefore the majority of vehicles do not features a driver's side grip. A number of cars that I've been in have been the same way: no roof rail grip handle for the driver.

I never worked in what I grew to associate with the typical mass employers of teens: retail, the food industry or pumping gas; one or the other of which all my friends did at one point. My first paying job was mowing a few neighbor's lawns (which I did for a few summers). My first working-for-someone-else paying job was resurfacing tennis courts & driveways for a paving company for one summer. One duty was opening a 55-gal drum of liquid tar, putting half in another empty barrel, adding (3) 5-gal pails of water, (2) 5-gal pails of sand and mixing it with a drill/attachment. Rolling/loading them onto the truck was fun too- must've weighed a good 500lbs (55gal of water + barrel = 400lbs). Tough job.

I'd heard that an actual car was built that, I assume, was the inspiration for the song (or vice versa- don't know).... have always wanted to see a picture of it if it existed...never did until now- thanks razor!

There are a lot I like for various reasons, but as far as 'hands-on' admiration: PMD 389 and BMD 455.

My brother & I have debated on whether Rockford ever had the '73 style 'bird: I swear in the earliest shows he did, haven't found out for sure yet. I don't recall a '79-style, but I'm not a rabid viewer. If you watch a bunch of shows, sometimes the 'crunch' 'bird (where his car gets damaged) is a different year than the one he'd been driving earlier that episode- fun to watch for. Always liked the show, got to see some episodes last summer while recouperating from some surgery. Still quite entertaining- esp the character interaction element. My brother & I still call that move where he floors the 'bird in reverse, stabs the parking brake & spins the car around then takes off forward in one fluid motion, a "Rockford".

That's certainly nothing a Duramax couldn't do with complete ease. It looks impressive, then you recall hearing about a man pulling a locomotive with his own 2 feet. Wonder what my COE would pull... 180 TRQ, 6.04 first gear, 8.11 rear axle; who's got the formula??

I dug Nevermind when it first broke, but never bought any albums. In general, grew tired of the band many years ago.

'Kramer' is a character in a fictional scenario, Micheal Richards is another person altogether. IMO, enjoying a fictionalized character in a sitcom would not be diminished because of what the actor who portrayed him said in another venue; the one has no bearing on the other.

Someone gets it.I really don't see Regal/GP/Allure buyers (even a GS/GXP/CXS) pumping up CTS sales numbers. Just too different of segments, images & machines.

'04 Silverado : 51,6xx '94 F-150 : 145,xxx '64 Grand Prix : 56,xxx '59 Invicta : 103,xxx (will reset odo to 00000) '40 Ford COE : unknown '03 Grand Prix (wife's) : 59,xxx yellow dart- when I bought my '64, it had 55,554.5 on the odo.

Front end looks better (even with the giant hood gap), but the rear is awful (so plump & stubby), esp those convoluted and HUGE taillights. Jeez, soon headlights & taillights will touch the bases of the A- & C-pillars. What's with the dual outlet exhaust on a 4-banger- does the v-6 get 4 tips??

So can we call it 'retro'?

Thanks regal, you're a prince. The intent of my initial post was that side glass is always tempered. This is why I posted "It {laminated side glass} can't be done". I was mistakenly under the impression that tempered side glass was federally mandated; but if in fact you can get laminated side glass today, that's enough to prove the impression incorrect. One might understand my impression in that as of model year 2000, 99.9% of all U.S. market vehicles feature tempered side & rear glass. I never said it was impossible, but I did say that it couldn't be done because side glass is tempered... which it is 99.9% of the time. Adding a plastic laminate to glass that's heated to 1200 degrees during processing might not work too well. Guess I missed that 0.1% of cars with laminated side glass. Pretty monsterous error on my part. Was this a "lie"? Certainly not. An intentional "misleading"? Certainly not. Did my hackles rise upon being called a liar, a deceiver and/or an idiot without provocation? Yes, apparently so. I'm human, and sometimes I have human reactions to open belligerence and/or arrogance. A simple posting of the correct fact would been far more constructive, but we didn't get that, not for a long drawn-out while. Can't say I'm surprised. Since tempered is not mandated, then yes, laminated side glass can be done. NHTSA did a study comparing tempered to laminated and did not come to any conclusions regarding injury potentials, to the extent the agency chose not to recommend one over the other. However, having broken both types more than once with the intent of studying the results- my observations have shown without a doubt that tempered is far safer than laminated upon contact (occupant retention is another matter, but far from the only one). Some of the other significant factors to consider, I posted above. This is supported by the fact that almost no manufacturer uses laminated side glass, notably those with supposed reputations for safety. Besides the point, perhaps, but it does answer the question 'why not use laminated on side windows'. Why has supposedly safety-conscious volvo primarily used tempered for decades and decades, hmmm? However, tempered glass IS illegal in windshields in the U.S., and although the FMVSS does not specifically state such, I have read more than once over many years that part of the reason is for visibility in case of impact. Apparently the sources that said this were in error. Clearly penetration is also a prime consideration. But if you've ever 'looked thru' crazed tempered glass, common sense says you wouldn't want your windshield doing that upon impact at speed. Common sense has never been an automatic part of federal actions, needless to say. In closing, I made an honest mistake, esp in light of the frequency of laminated side glass useage. I would hope that my 'personality' here over the years would not give cause for most members to assume deception & lies are behind my posts. There's always one in the bunch, I suppose...

S-class is past-peak: the mazda design cues (fenders) are patently atrocious. There are also about 300 too many cut lines & panel seams for such an expensive car.

Food for thought: "Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle, not the other way around. In fact, I have seen more than one hapless unbelted occupant of a vehicle propelled fully through a laminated windshield. Safety glass, which is designed to shatter into very small pieces, is used on side windows in cars. This type of glass is easy to shatter should you need to make a hasty exit from the vehicle, and that's a key reason it's put there. It also shatters into small pieces with very little "sharding," reducing the opportunity for serious injury from broken glass. Laminated glass requires a special saw to get through. With 12 years of experience, it still takes me five minutes to saw through a car windshield. If your car is on fire you'd prefer safety glass for this reason alone. Laminated glass also causes serious head and facial injuries to those who do full face-plants against the windshield despite seat belt warnings. It will have the same effect in a side window if an occupant is unbelted. Some automakers are putting laminated glass in the side windows of high-end cars, but this trend should be viewed with great caution. This type of glass does prevent people from "popping a window" to escape from a vehicle in an emergency situation. Two examples of emergencies of this type are vehicle crashes with resulting fires and accidents where a vehicle ends up partially submerged in a body of water. In both cases, the electrical system will likely short out and will prevent easy exit since nearly all cars now have power windows. Automotive glass should not be used to keep people in the vehicle. Using automotive glass as a backup safety feature would do more harm than good. Seat belts are to keep you in the vehicle, not windows."

BTW- sixty8; gotta say- LOVE that fat fendered design in your sig- I'd drive that the rest of my life if I could. Something right along those lines is just what I would have built if money was no object- F**k exotics and uber-overpriced tuner cars.

'33 Chevy Albanita. The body styling-wise was completely unique and definately advanced, but the primary purpose was a ride/ handling program, testing 4-wheel independent suspension. Albanita also had a unique monotube chassis (tho the productioin X-frame ultimately turned out to be much stiffer). Story goes that Chrysler actively photographed the Albanita at Milford Proving Grounds, to the point that one engineer took to carrying a shotgun during testing, threatening to shoot industrial spies. The Chrysler Airflow debuted for 1934.

Sorry- not a 'suspected' vintage version, but the very same §571.205. You might not have automatically assumed when you didn't know. Did you find yours at the source like I did?: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations...csr/571.205.htm I know- shocking that someone who has no idea what he's talking about would go to the entity that makes the rule for the definition of the rule, but I'm wily that way. Again, take up your 'silly' allegations with the DOT- it's their standard, not mine. I'm sure they'd be quite appreciative to learn they're lying & misleading.

>>"He said the bolts were on the front which is odd considering they are usually screwed into the differential cover at the rear."<< Yeah, it's commonly referred to as a 'front loader' differential. I'm familiar with them from my '64 Pontiacs.