balthazar

Moments indeed had more emotional impact, but I like this one as well. Anytime a manufacturer acknowledges it's heritage, I am pleased. I do esecially like the 'Since 1902' also. I would really like to see -just once- a Cadillac ad that highlights 1896 and the beginning of engine production.

Is that right? A mid-'60s flathead?? Huh. Even MoPar dumped theirs after '60. Those progressive saab engineers; I knew I should've given the 'born from jets' tagline more credit.

>>"English is becoming rare, if not extinct. "<< Overstatement?

I've seen 2 so far in traffic. The front end truely is a curious monstrosity. Somehow reminds me of the unloved '61 DeSoto's nose. Was in a previous gen CR-V last month for a few hours. 3 different & weird plastic/vinyl texturings made for a disjointed interior impact. Materials were average. Fit & finish was average with a few very minor misalignments. Certainly nothing special in the least. Perhaps honda put some effort into this one's interior...

I've parallel parked 18-foot vehicles all my life with no gimmicks like auto-tilt mirrors or parking sonar. It's a fundamental basic of learning to drive- if you can't do it, you shouldn't be driving. Fly is dead-right: this overwrought technical coddling of drivers is creating a pool of worse & worse drivers overall, and it "raises the (perception) bar" as far as the competition having to match this in the near future because it's "better"... until you can't buy a new car without all this electronic bullsh!t on it.

That's no flat six. Looks like two inline 3-cylinder flatheads, each driving one front wheel. There's individual ignition, exhaust & cooling for each motor. I don't think they're neccessarily connected to each other; it must be that the belt drives are 'right-angled' out to the side in order to fit. What it's in I have no idea- something about the inner fenders says either '40s U.S. or '60s european. I await details of how the transmission(s) are set up...

A recent AutoPacific survey of 5000 consumers revealed that of all pickup owners (includes compacts):. used for towing - 54% . getting to off-road sites - 31% . real off-roading - 11% If you look at just 1/2-ton trucks the towing numbers are higher, and 3/4-ton and above pick-ups towing useage is 85%! Even agenda-driven surveys point to (at least occassional) towing useage in the low 60% range.

Funny; I have no problem IDing the CTS from the STS even at extreme distances, yet I have more of a problem doing so with the 3 & 5. Perhaps individual familiarity is the issue here? I see no evidence whatsoever that the CTS and the STS were deisnged with "two different schools of thought"; they are very compatable, design-wise.

I haven't seen an XR up close yet, but was talking to a guy at a small local fall festival where 3 Saturns were on display. This guy did not work for Saturn, but owned a Sky (which he didn't bring that day) and was asked to be there by the local dealership. Thing that impressed me was that he had driven an XR extensively and said without a doubt it handled better than his infiniti G35X. Par for the course, again we see references to "not groundbreaking' in regards to a GM product. I have asked this before: can anyone give an example of a recent competitor's product that was groundbreaking?

>>"OK so what you are saying is you have nothing to support your statements! Thought so."<< I had no less to support my statement( ) than O.C. did WRT the CTS vs. the STS; why not ask him what he had to support his? Look at the pic of the 5-series above (thanks razor): less creases, same-old grille treatment, simpler wheels, Grand Am front bumper... it's just as "less striking" as the STS (if not moreso).

No-oooo, the 1970s were very good for Cadillac on all fronts. It wasn't until 1981 that any image bruising took place.

"less striking design" >< "upward move"

A lot of people would be embarassed to say they owned a japanese brand outside of honda or toyota. A lot of people would be embarassed to say they owned a mercedes or BMW (I would). You don't like or appreciate Pontiacs. Great. Please God: end of story??

That's impossible and I don't believe it. You see; just last week Jerry Flintstone said that Cadillac is in a decline and everything they've done in the last 5 years is worthless. Or at least that's the way it read. Thusly... the people you're talking to are obviously lying.

Good question; I wonder what bmw 5-series buyers would say and how few "moved up" from a 3-series?

And how much money would the government have saved had they not granted funds to moronic 'research' topics? The real culprit by far is not the weight of the driver, which is about 5% of the curb weight involved, but the weight of the vehicle. Cars & trucks have ballooned in weight vs. 1960; and the German & Japanese vehicles have ballooned the most by far. Vehicle weight is still climbing and far too high. A current mercedes 2-seat roadster weighs more than my early '90s F-150!

turbo20= >>"okay I am young so I don't remember nor do I care that Commodore was used before."<< The name is extremely dated. You should care about that if you give a tin sh!t about Pontiac. >>"I do, however, know of the GP. It is junk, has been so, for a while now. It was nice back in '99, then it was desirable. It lost its luster long ago..."<< 'Desirable' in '99 and 'junk' 5-7 years later?? Is there any relativity in your viewpoint, or are shades of variation always 'black or white'? And here I was thinking you were saying the GP hasn't been desirable for something like 15 years or whathaveyou. 5 years is nothing vs. the decades of great GPs going back to '62- the name may be bruised, but it's in no way in need of replacement, especially with something so awful as 'Commodore'. >>"...many enthusiasts know the name from Holden so what's so LOL about that?"<< There may be a tiny fraction of enthusiasts nation-wide that are cognicent of 'Commodore'; a miniscule, infetessimal, scattered group.... but nothing in the way of a demographic or a customer base, nothing that would equate to a sales advantage vs. the reactions of consumers to the ancient-sounding nameplate (Commodore 64 is a great example of the commercial appeal today). If Pontiac is facing an uphill perception battle (and I'm not saying it isn't), fetid nameplates are not the way to go. The car itself may be fine & a good business case for success, but the styling has to be right as does the name. This isn't Australia and 'Commodore' isn't Pontiac.

"instant name recognition among enthusiasts"- LOL! if anything, the 'name recognition' would be due to using a 1950s moniker in 200x. The last Commodore in the U.S. was a '52 Hudson. Another oft-proposed nameplate from down under (for Buick) is 'Statesman', last seen in the U.S. as a '56 Nash. Do I think anyone will remember the Hudson & Nash examples? No, I do not. But the names are hoary and old and wretched and the last thing Pontiac needs. Let the names alone, focus on the vehicles first. Recent long-running Pontiac nameplates have all had excellent examples in their past; get the product more in line with what Pontiac traditionally has been and the luster will return to the names naturally.

Well.... Chrysler seemed to be done with it and they're both MoPar..... but I get your point.

I have thought the same thing for some time (via observation): easier, better driving, quicker cars primarily allow less-skilled drivers to further exceed their abilities.

Not dogging you, Fly, but....The crosshair grille design was 'borrowed' from Chrysler. Used on the 300 Letter Series cars: '60-65, other Chryslers in '66-68, plus the '79 300 had it. I know- no one but me remembers....

Is a 7-spd auto and 335 HP examples of "astonishing technology"? Cause they aren't. The mercedes doesn't even come close to one of it's competitor's 403 HP; get on the stick, DCX.And what diesels cannot run on the new low-sulfer fuel; I have yet to see any stations installing a 2nd set of diesel pumps and it went on sale last Sunday. Is this also supposed to be more "astonishing technology"? I hear sucky-sucky sounds....

Quibbles on the quibbles: >>"Aside from the very first use documented below on that '48 Roadmaster, they never, ever, ever, ever did."<< Not so fast, grasshopper. VentiPorts were functional halfway thru the production '49 run AND on the '87 GNX. >>"Buick's Signia carried them (1998) as well as Cielo (1999), LaCrosse (2000), Bengal (2001), Velite (2004), and Enclave (2005). They also were reintroduced into the production lineup in 2003 for the Park Avenue Ultra."<< As buickguy alluded to: Buick VentiPorts (production)~ 1949-1957 1960-1984 1987 1992-1996 2003-present Sorry- I like them & all, but the '92-96 Roadmaster's C-pillar vents just don't fit my definition of VentiPorts (primarily: they're not on the front fenders or hood). I included them above anyway. LOTS of VentiPorts on Buick concepts. LOVE how this lazy-ass writer missed twenty-five years of Buick portholes. What a pathetic miserable idiotic nothing. To clarify: Nickles' personal '48 Roadmaster convertible had amber lights wired to the distributor, and they flashed with the respective spark plugs. He was inspired by WWII fighter plane exhaust. Tho the '49s were only 7 months from production, they were ordered to be included. Without the lights, unfortunately. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the fact that Ventiports are (primarily) decorative. Loads of 'decoration' & fake stuff on loads of cars, foreign & domestic. Who gives a sh!t if any of it's functional when you usually have to be told via press release when something IS functional. VentiPorts are cool- I am still thinking about putting them on my '59.

"Back in the 70s..." I'd like to hear this idiot's idea of what the 'bad transmission' was/is. GM "notorious" for bad transmissions? Boy has this dude got his uneducated snap judgements reversed.

Of course it's bad, because'OK" Jerry needs something to whine about under false pretenses. And the japanese makes can do no wrong. Cadillac had to have controlled far greater than a mere 50% of the market at one point. Historical top volume year was '78: 383,xxx units. But you are correct: the traditional annual volume is in the 250K range. Nonsense; just look at the car! Absolutely stunning.What I would like to see is mercedes' and Cadillac's volume divided by number of different models- merce seems to have an overwhelming quantity of models...