balthazar

Are you asking for Buick's initial location, or General Motors'? The Buick, Complete History shows a photo that's captioned 'the first General Motors headquarters' at 127 Woodward Ave in Detroit (and the building is so lettered in the pic). Chronologically, the pic is placed in discussion of 1909-1910 text. Now, Durant had more than one office, of course a prominent one in Flint in the early years. Which one, if any, was considered the 'headquarters' of GM- I'm not sure. Functionally, the headquarters was wherever Durant was. But I can't substantiate official "GM" headquarters beyond the above at this writing; it's the only visually-identified building I've seen a pic of yet this early. 'Headquarters' can refer to either/or the location of the legal organization (GM was organized in NJ in 1908, but I've yet to hear they ever maintained a physical presence in the state), or the physical offices. Ground was broken for Buick's first automotive manufacturing in September 1903 on West Kearsley St in Flint, across the street from the Flint Wagon Works. But in Jan 1904, The Buick Board voted to dissolve the Buick Motor Company "headquartered in Detroit" and organized a new firm with the same name, "headquartered in Flint". A new, much larger facility was begun in 1905, not sure of it's address, but it had an 'office' building prominently up front. In 1905, a Buick print ad stated the company had factories in Jackson & Flint, but the bold type said 'Buick Motor Co, Jackson MI". It all gets confusing rather quickly. If anyone has the time, there are a GREAT & fascinating series of threads on early MI auto factories and 'what's there' today at http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/78791.html Myself, with a dial-up connection, have only gotten thru about a third of the threads and I need to go back to the start and take some notes.

Yes- it's bloated in appearance. Wheels/tires look disproportionally small. The way the grille 'overlaps' the headlights is really awkward. Mirrors (since we were 'treated' to a close-up) are ungainly & cumbersome-looking compared to even the GMT800 manually-extendable mirrors. GMT800 Tahoe beltline seems obvious in it's inspiration. Overly-thick C-pillar will undoubedly contribute to blind spot. 2 completely different door handles on the 4-dr are ridiculous. Rear fender scallop is a bizarre optical illusion. Really; this couldn't be farther from groundbreaking and presents no valid arguement whatsoever for switching. Wonder if the media will pick up on it this time around?

Or is it more 'sort of Ford'? OMG you are twisted. Allow me to quote a well-known message board poster: You need to get your eyes checked!!

I'm not a huge fan of this generation of big Buicks, but there's nothing stylistically wrong with it, just on the plain side. This treatment, tho, is not great: the rims suck ass, the car is riding too high (inches higher than stock!), and any convert with 600+ HP needs a hard boot; not a folded top. White car on white background doesn't help the impact here either. I hope it's running Buick power. Buick was working on turbocharging even back in this era but decided there may have been certain longevity issues with 800+ HP (liability not a concern??), so they offered 360 instead.

Daily: ice tea. Never: coffee. Often: milk from cereal bowl, tho I am trying to eliminate milk as much as possible.

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.