balthazar

>>"It's like girls right...some look good with their tops on or off. But then some should keep their tops off all the time."<< Very astute, Sir Earl. Stylistically, I do like A-Ms. They have class & presence where so many others that claim to, don't. Maybe the top is as good as one can be made in this instance, but a car costing this much should have a retractable, IMO...: the folding canvas doesn't match up well with the rest of the image. Surprising to see that expensive of a car on such a cheesy trailer...

Perceptionally, that is.

The appeal of more room is that you have more room. Prisoners traditionally have a 6'x8' 'bedroom' and that 'works' fine for them, but no one wants that in their house. Some people are content with their shoulders 2 inches from the side glass and 4 from the other passenger, some prefer less confining interiors. A preference, nothing more, no judgement required or justified.

Oh great; a question I could answer by touch (I'd use a bare foot!) and I hit the hay early! BTW- tho of course Fly still wins, the '57 Ford pic is a '59.

I see no obvious take-off of the Solitaire (or the Voyage; basically a 4-dr version of the Solitaire) concepts other that the skirted rear wheels. Those had strong Cadillac signature front ends and completely fluid fuselages and owed a lot to '80s full-size Cadillacs. This concept has numerous planes and sharp edges, with a decisively 'aero' treatment with the low, laidback nose & windshield. They're nothing alike (well, they're both red ). Entourage: lot of intersecting edges along the flanks- too many for me and enough to dispell the intention of power boats/ yachts. Skirted wheels are fine (I like 'em), but of course the complete impracticality of such a low car, corrected for street use, would loose that 'gliding over water' look (in the front wheel well, too). This is SOP in the model-to-production transformation, of course, tho I wonder if in the case of the skirts, it would be much more pronounced/noticable. Just once I would like to see a production car (air suspension?) ride this low. Except for the celica-esque headlights that reach halfway to the A-pillar (blorf!), I like the design fairly well.... but it's not a Cadillac.

I've only driven wide vehicles for the most part: 72.8 76.9 79.2 79.6 79.0 80.7 and whatever a Silverado measures in at. Never misjudged anything with regards to body dimensions. It's not to accomodate personal width, but the luxury of space is quite pleasant. I hate being pinned in a modern, 72"-ish car with a high console and close wheel, where turning in your seat, never mind trying to reach something in the back, is a hinderance at best. No one bothers to try and build/buy a house that's as narrow/tight/compact as possible, how much energy does it cost to heat & cool those in comparison?

My '59 is one of the widest cars ever (body width, doesn't include sideview mirrors): 80.7". Seats are wonderfully wide.

yea, guess I did. Should've been more specific...

No; I was referring to the cold air induction connection from the air cleaner to the cowl plenum on Camaros. Not sure if it was shipped installed- it was a guess. BTW Sixty8: the 3-piece '70.5 COPO rear spoiler WAS shipped in the trunk.... for dealer installation, but you weren't looking for that. I knew the Firebird RA story- forgot it. Also heard the cross-ram story before, forgot that one, too. Pontiac shipped early ('60) Super Duty cars with SD heads & intake in the trunk, also. Yes: "Ram Air" is a Pontiac moniker.

If the answer is the Firebird, I'm incorrect; Firebirds used hood scoop intakes for RA & I was referring to the Camaro's cowl intake.

Cowl-plenum ram air kit ('67-69)? COPO 3-piece rear spoiler ('70 1/2)?

I've not owned the import Catalog, tho I've also busted up my first edition American '46-75 book due to extensive usage. It's in the American Catalog I've found numerous errors- to the point I've taken to writing correct data in it in pen. One of the individual marque catalogs I've checked out was, by itself; awful.... tho I am trying to recify that. I have a few of the 'encyclopedia' type books- they're great for number of entries but of course they never get into any deep info or specs. Actually, they give such general info that they're probably quite reliable, accuracy-wise.

Yep.

Well toyota makes 75% of it's global profit in the U.S., so they would probably consider it seriously. As far as anyone else goes,... now you get the idea.

True: the '74.

It went to India if that helps...

Awesome catch! I always though this gen paled next to the C2s, but a buddy has a '68 hardtop and the day I checked it out, I was impressed on many levels with the design. It's stands tall with no apologies. Just last week my brother told me his friend is looking to sell his Corvette Tri-Power set-up, complete, unrestored. Not sure what year it is (it's late '60s), will get his contact info Mon. PM me.

Me too: closest town growning up had about 1200. I prefer it, actually. Shoot me a PM if you see stuff older than '65 in that junkyard, esp if it's '40s or '50s or unusual.

I watch the Super Bowl after nosing around a few weeks before to see who's gonna be in it. That's it.

Missed that thread. Your source was incorrect, shame on Cadillac there. I've registered, will add as time allows. Hope it takes off!

Buick: CVT 1948-1964.

Haven't seen it yet (will check...). Is it just a segregation of the auto entries into another domain, ala ebaymotors? Post-check: Is this it??: www.autowikipedia.com Cadillac entry: >>"Founded by Henry Leland? in 1903 {It was 1902}. Aquired by General Motors in 1908 {1909}for $4.5 million. {$5.6 million} I'm confused now (sees 'Flybrian' tagline): Is this connected with wikipedia or no? Is this the post regarding this undertaking, or did I miss explaination elsewhere?

Engines are world's more complex and maleable than transmissions. Short of an infinitly-variable trans, there's no way to achieve more gear ratios without more gears. You think everyone is suddenly just going to stop at 8?? You think mercedes is going to be fine & dandy when hyundais' also have 8-speeds? I strongly doubt it.

Did not Ford, Chevy/GMC & Dodge compete in the pick-up market against each other for decades and decades and decades? Was that not 'competition', either?Solstice is a critical, consumer and physical success story, eating heavily into mazda's corner on the market. It competes extremely well, thanks. It only takes 2 to tango.

On average, cars today have wider & flatter powerbands than ever. They also have --again, on average-- more power. Anything more than 5 speeds... maybe 6.... in a gas engined car is simply not an engineering necessity (I can see 5-6 even 7 gears in diesels, tho). A 1-2% decrease in acceleration times is not discernable without testing equipment, neither is the same gain in fuel economy. Sure, 'every little bit counts', but at what price? And if you have to be told about it (as opposed to experiencing it), is it worth it?"A step ahead"?? This is pure perception, not reality. It's all a game of one-upmanship and there seemingly is no end. Once 2 or 3 makes have 8-speeds, someone will have to go to 9, then 10. Doubt it? We've already gone from 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 to 8. And it's not progress, it's just 'more'. Why should it stop now? It can't, tho I wish it would.