balthazar

Early plastic in the Buick shots is likely Bakelite, a dense, high-quality-feel synthetic (then again- it may be soybean-based: Ford was doing it). Nothing since is as nice and rich- I laugh when reviews praise the quality of -say- lexus plastics. Ferrari dash is cool & purposeful, tho you can't help but wonder if the wheel was mounted 180-degrees from where it is, the guages would be perfectly unobscured. Reminds me of the Cadillac LeMans dash: The '32 Cadillac & '37 Packard clusters are gorgeous.

Here's a tip: it isn't useful OR entertaining. Consider blazing a new path; the Informative Style, where the quantity of factual data & hands-on reality of the car under your ass crowds out ridiculous over-statements and endless comparisons with a baker's dozen of other cars that have no bearing on the one you're driving. You might just insure your longevity; the backlash against modern automotive 'journalists' has never been stronger and it's still growing.

I believe Jag used those same brochure pics in print ads; the red one against the 'copters sure looks familiar. I have a small quantity of vintage Jag print ads in my collection. RE: values- no doubt the big ticket Jags are the models 'where Jag came from': the XK-120, -140, -150 and the E-types, not the saloons. Some Buicks of the period hit very high numbers; the '58 Limited convertible (836 built) in #1 is often in the $90K range, but lower series are no where near that. I know you feel I'm "trying to wear you down", but that's completely wrong. I'm just talking cars here. I question to learn, not instigate. If the 3.8 in the Mark X developed 265, why did Jag bother enlarging it to 4.2 only to develop the same HP? Just curious- not trying to re-write your books. Seems like a waste of precious engineering budget, unless increased TRQ was the objective with the cars growing larger & heavier. Personally- I had only a fledgling interest in muscle cars; I have always gravitated towards the F/S versions: Pontiac 2+2 over GTO, Buick Wildcat 2x4 4-spd over GS400, Chrysler 300-F over Hemi Belvedere, etc. Performance is always appealing, but style & substance is just as much so for me. Camaros & Novas? Never been interested: far too common. 2G Riv and 1G Toro?- always admired them and it feels like I've always known about them.

The '66 version of the Pontiac 'Camino' is based on the full-sized line (that's the '66 GP nose). I like it a lot, I think it works stylistically, tho not business case-wise. Would prefer owning the '59 by far, tho.

razor= >>"you dont understand my point.... understand now?"<< Yes, but that's a rather large leap to say that engineering R&D from the '60s NOT making it to showrooms THEN is responsible for the shape fo things going on TODAY; too large a leap for me. LOT of other factors involved here..... sixty8= >>"I know a certain someone on this Forum who has a complete set of these in his garage... I've seen them with my own eyes."<< I think I know who.... sending PM...... >>"...no interuptions in the production line. Just like a custom built Cadillac Opera Coupe, a Hearse or Limo where the sheetmetal is getting rearranged but the chassis/motor is untouched."<< None of those listed above were built by Cadillac or on Cadillac assembly lines. >>"I wonder if this one ('59 Pontiac 'ElCamino') ever had a working name? "<< Doesn't appear so. The survivor has "Catalina" on the rear quarters and uses a Safari tailgate, so it also has "Safari" on it, but this was a proposal by Pontiac Engineering, so a final name or even a working name was not reached at that point. PMD GM nixed the project in view of dwindling Ranchero/ElCamino sales. Hopefully it'll be on the hobbyist show circuit at some point; it's been a 30-yr resto process. The '80 Pontiac 'Camino' proposal was a front-clip update of a '78 proposal, where it got the '80 GA nose. >>"You mean NASCA scoops right? The ones that look like this"<< No- Pontiac called them NACA, after the predecessor to NASA. But you got the scoop shape spot on: The factoid states no functional NACA hoods were sold, but plenty of non-functional ones were. I believe opened scoops failed to meet fed drive-by noise limits, and this is right around the time the Pontiac shakers were sealed off ('74??). Also note: there was a proposal for a '75 GTO, based again on the Ventura that recieved the new chassis for '75. Plans called for a similar set-up to the '74: 350 power, shaker scoop, etc. Pics are not known to exist, perhaps an actual prototype wasn't built.

I'm pretty much with GMman here. "try not to get bogged down with semantics"? What- too busy being bogged down with the overly dramatic?

In '67 PMD enlarged the 421 to a 428 (and the 389 to a 400). OldsGuy- you are giving a valuable & rare gift- I believe these are extremely rare today; I certainly never see them advertised.

The Mk X is in fantastic shape and it is classy. It's just some of the details that strike me- not because they're 'bad', just because they're dated. By '66 the bulk of the segment (and most outside the segment) have moved so far on. Yup; that makes the Jag more distinctive (a hallmark of luxury), and I value distinction, but at the same time it just doesn't fit my preferences. There are also a completely different set of expectations when I'm looking at a -say- 1935 car vs. a 1965 car. Just as I don't expect A/C and PW in a '35, I don't expect exposed screws & hinges in a '65. Perhaps I put too much focus on the year/era it is, or the domestics are too deeply ingrained into my soul. But I can't help but notice these things and they irk me. Couple those observations with 'Jaguar is the ultimate in luxury' (as some fans & ads gush) and I get a bit incensed. I have no use for Chevys or Fords at car shows- never even look at them (unless they're pre-war). I've been going to cars shows for over 20 years; I've seen it all. Hell, I'd already seen it all on the roads- these cars hold no interest for me. Hershey is a car show I enjoy attending- last year's biggest treat: my first Hudson Italia (25 built).

Here's a '66 Mark X. Unfortunately, I can't link to the pics. http://www.hymanltd.com/search/Details.asp...&recordCount=53 With a $100,000 restoration, this has to be the finest example in the country. I am shocked the asking price is only $29K. This one supposedly weighs 3930 (ironic: the exact shipping weight of my '64 GP) and the 4.2L six claims 265 HP. Seems weird that the 3.8 also put out 265 in the Mk X- like I said, I saw 2 sources that said 220. I wonder if the DIN/SAE conversion issue is at play here: Another source showed a DIN HP of 201, which works out to a SAE figure of 270. Same source also said TRQ was 353, but I'm not buying 353 TRQ from 231 CI (No unit of measure on TRQ).

razoredge= >>"Oh, so somehow you figure I should be qualified to answer this question like I am the one that decided Jaguar should have an "aura" which clearly in your eyes, they do not deserve ?"<< No; you not supposed to decide it, but you apparently recognize it. All I asked is what, specifically, do you recognize that supports the claim. No puff, no grandeose absolutes, no tangents on world events or economic hardships- forget all that; all we have in 2006 is a car (pics) sitting in front of us. We can see the car, we know or can find the segment leaders well enough; does this one measure up, let's talk specifics. If we can't talk specific details, we're still having two different discussions, tho I AM trying.... >>"So are guages you need not look down by your knees to read. Then combine those round poorly located gauges..."<< You must've missed it: plain & simple and again: those guages "by your knees" are aftermarket, not Pontiac. >>"Then combine those round poorly located gauges with the ribbon speedo or whatever they call that style and you dont have uniformity or as you said "compliment each other"."<< Horizontal speedo will do. At least all the dash knobs/switches match. >>"solid Walnut"<< Hey, Pontiac uses American Walnut in this era, too. BTW- saw in online resto pics that the Walnut in the Mark X center section is a veneer, not solid. It's a veneer in Pontiacs, too ('63-66), and tho thinner, I doubt either owner would be able to tell how much so without disassembly. Maybe the dashtop is solid, tho solid wood -as I'm sure you know- will warp & crack in temperature extremes and over time- not a smart choice for longevity, tho it may sound good in ad copy. >>"now, ponder why Jaguar used black bezels on its luxury car when clearly chrome bezel gauges were available...........there has to be something behind it..........like it or not......probably the same thing behind the lack of fancy exterior trim."<< Oh good; specifics. OK- why?

Who, razor, 'survived better for longer'? A great deal of Pontiac's projects trickled into RPO stuff. The cars at the time ('60s) were top-shelf, #3 in the U.S. and the money was pouring in. Would you rather Pontiac just sat back and coasted and researched nothing? I don't get this....

I love MOP and AJFA- 2 albums I will love & listen to until death. Seriously, if I see 90, I will still be listening to One. Oh; look at that: AJFA is in the CD drive of my PC right now. I've already been thru 2 cassettes and on #3 (CD) of AJFA. They are the peak performance of Metallica and outstandings albums period, IMO. So much rage and anger. I have no problem with the low bass on AJFA, but these heavier bass versions (only heard one so far- damned 56K connection) are completely worth the download time.

Yes- there were only 3 '63 SD GPs; the rarest of SD models, 16 in '62; the bulk of SD installation was in Catalinas. Like I posted above, there were 177 SDs built in '62, more from '61-63 and some over-the-counter in '60, plus '61-63 over-the-counter engines. It was a production program. Anyone could buy one, tho dealers were understandably told to discourage sales to those without known racing experience. '62-64 Cat/GP auto 1/4 miles are hampered by the Roto HydraMatic 375. Altho I had no problem whatsoever with my '64 Cat's trans operation/performance, the box is characteristic of losing a lot of RPM between gears. The '62 GP that did 0-60 in 8.0 and the 1/4 in 17.2 @ 85 shifted into 3rd at 67 MPH. The larger RPM drop is during the 1-2, but it's at least a partial contributor. A random counterpoint: '60 Chrysler 300-F Torqueflite: 0-60: 7.1, 1/4 mile: 16.0 @ 85. ChryCo's 3-spd TrqFlt is a more straightforward 3-spd auto, so I would call it's numbers much more typical (tho again- the deep breathing of the 300-F's ram-induction 413 are also a (positive) contributor to posting a very good 1/4-mile time vs. it's own 0-60 & the Pontiac's numbers). 3-spd manual Pontiacs are not common in the road test arena, and most 4-spd were either/or Tri-Power/421 cars, so those numbers don't really apply. But the Pontiac 389 is a great, strong, motor that responds very well to mods and definately performs 'better than it should'. 3.8L Jag performance is decent if it's under 11 with 265 HP (or is it 220 HP as a couple sources I looked at said?). Ci is much lower but power output is not so far off (265 vs. 303). I saw no torque rating for the 3.8- do you know them? 303/389 torque is 430 in '64. I also saw 2 widely different weights for the Mark X, one was about 3800, the other 4250; which is right? A '62 Cat 2-dr would weigh right about 3850- I can't believe a 202" long Mark X would weigh 4250. Unless it's all that lumber weight.

Somewhere in GM Archives, perhaps there are pics (of drawings). I would love to see that, too.

Oh F-ing please.This guy has as good a chance as most 'journalists' that are in the 'profession'. He's got the over-dramatic down to a T.

No discrepancy: different motor. The 370-HP 421 HO is indeed the top 'street' engine, but the (rated) 405-HP SD-421 was tested and revealed to develop 465 HP. These motors (there were 3 different-tune SD 421s along with 2 SD 389s. SD cars would dip into the 12's in factory tune with skinny bias-ply (shaved tread = 'slicks') tires. SDs were regular options produced in limited quantities. Pontiac built 177 SD cars in '62, plus an additional quantity of over-the-counter engines. SD program ended cold turkey when GM pulled the plug on facotry-backed racing in Jan '63. As one article stated: the Pontiac Trophy 389 has performance to "amaze your friends and confound your opponents". Car Life~ '62 GP, 303/389, 3-spd auto, 3.23. 0-60: 7.2 sec, 1/4-mile: 15.9. Motor Trend~ '62 GP, 303/389, auto, 3.23. 0-60: 8.0, 1/4 mile: 17.2. Motor Trend: '64 Cat, 303/389, auto, 2.56. 0-60: 10.0, 1/4 mile: 17.2. My '64 Cat (267/389, auto, 2.56) sure felt quicker than 11s to 60, but I never timed it officially. It out-accelerated most every other regular daily driver on the road, and this with the much-ballyhooed Roto HydraMatic. I'm partial to '64 over '63; a '64 GP was/is my first car and 2 other '64s followed it. I like the 'refinement' of the front end, the 'krinkle-cut' fender tops, the 'boomerang' taillights & the way the front & rear bumpers match in profile.

Cool list, I think you posted this once a long while back. Pontiac also developed a light-duty, low-profile tank during WWII, but I would have to dig thru a 4-foot stack of publications to post any details here. >>"The 1956 Pontiac Club de Mer show car had a brushed metal skin. Guess who the head of Pontiac Advance Design was at that point? "<< It wasn't DeLorean- he was hired by PMD in '57. There is currently a full-size repro undergoing construction- as the original has eluded fans for 45+ years. >>"A 421 cid SOHC V-8 "Sports Engine" was seriously developed by Pontiac. A 395 cid was also proposed. 1963 test data on the 421 SOHC showed the four-barrel version produced more power than the Tri-power one. "<< The SOHC 421 developed 630 HP @ 6800 RPM ('Big blocks are only low-RPM torque motors' ) and only weighed 75 lbs more than a production 421. There was also a 3-valve version of this motor. There was also a Tri-Power DOHC 389 with 4-valve heads, aluminum cross-ram intakes & PMD-developed speed-density fuel injection. >>"One Pontiac OHC V-8 is currently running in a private owner’s car. "<< This is (one of the) 421 SOHCs, in the '63 GP of retired Pontiac Chief Engineer 'Mac' McKeller (for whom many hi-po Pontiac camshaft grinds are named). >>"The 1966 Tri-Power and 1967 four-barrel intake manifold/carburetor/ air cleaner systems had equivalent power..... the small Tri- Power air cleaners were quite restrictive also versus the large element used with the four-barrel."<< It was only the GTO that used the 3 individual air filters; all the big cars used a large single air cleaner/filter. >>"There was a plan for cast iron eight-lug wheels for the 1966 Tempest. Brake drum distortion and high unsprung weight killed the program. "<< These were proposed as early as for use on the '63 Tempest (same design). Beautiful wheels, but I'm not aware even a single set have survived. >>"Pontiac developed a rear mounted transmission, the EX-724, which was used in five experimental independent rear suspension transaxle cars."<< I believe this was in '59-60. How I would love to find a '60 Cat 2-dr with a transaxle in a junkyard!! >>"Pontiac developed (starting around 1967) a X-4 engine. It was an aluminum, two cycle, four-cylinder, air cooled, fuel injected engine."<< Hey Sixty8- maybe this is the X-4 concept you mentioned recently?? >>"Many Canadian Pontiacs, including the Canadian specific muscle cars, used Chevrolet engines."<< Canadian Pontiacs used Chevy engines at a 100% installation rate, at least from the late '50s ('58??) into the early-mid '70s). They're all Chevy engines & chassis's. >>"The major change in 1971 vs. 1970 horsepower ratings... comes from the use of more realistic net hp ratings in 1971 (which included a fan, an air cleaner, exhaust system, etc.) versus the gross hp used in 1970."<< I have always associated this change-over with '72: all spec sources I have list gross HP for '71 models. Please bring back Divisional Engineering departments (and budgets)!!!! Look at all the fantastic engine / powertrain programs listed above!

The VW 'pickup' is more like a shallow stake body truck than a useful pickup. And frankly, while flat floors are preferrable, seldom does one need a flat floor as opposed to the much greater volume the Corvair offered. Furniture would be better transported flat, but lumber or stone or bagged items or boxes would work just as well in a stepped bed as a flat bed. Altho a light0duty truck, I think another reason it wasn't more prolific in production is that 'real' pick-ups had more cargo/load capacities & more power. Rampside is a cool-ass truck tho. Haven't seen one in many years.

XP- you're wasting your finger's breath asking that {>>"please explain to me why everybody feels that British marques such as Jaguar have a sort of aura surrounding them and where they get this great reputation from"<<); I asked nearly the same question 3 pages ago but got no answer. It's like there's this..... Reputation, and you cannot question or challenge the Reputation in anyway or you are a balls-to-the-wall, first-rate hater. It's one thing to resort to stereoypes and generalities or even singular experiences (none of which I did), those may warrant some small degree of outrage, but when merely pointing to specific, pictorial evidence, still the Reputation overrides all. Sometimes I feel like I'm insulting the actual designer of these cars by questioning 'why'? It's just not allowed.

Here's my contribution to science. The governments of the major countries agree to make a day 25 hours long, giving everyone an additional hour a day to help 'git r done'. I've got 2 jobs going and not enough time for the 2nd one. Who in Jersey is looking for part-time carpentry work?

I'm with you there Sixty8- Chronos is sublime, the concept Imperial is fairly awful. >>"Oh, and also: Crapo is correct. No joke..."<< I was under this false impression, too, but the name is pronounced "Cray-po".

Another 'Mark X' ('65 4.2L "420") dash: rear seat area: I see some new details I like more now.... and some I like less. Let's just leave it at that.

I'm still enjoying this. >>"The Pontiacs interior is nice but its not a luxury car, its a version of an American sports car. At least its got full gauges...............down by the knees."<< Luxury, is very apparently in the eye of the beholder. If comfort, materials, design, amenities and attention to detail are present, you have a strong argument for luxury right there. IMO the early GPs were luxury cars, it's just that they could also be fantastic performers... all depends on how they are optioned. And Pontiac knew how to load an option sheet. The trio of guages are aftermarket. Big guage on the console is the factory tach in '62 (in '63 it would move up high, to the left of the speedo). No Pontiac (or other GM) factory tach on the column in this era. >>"Lots of plastic and stamped steel,"<< I've owned & been around lots of these cars- there is a very minimal amount of plastic. 2 years earlier GM cars average less than 15 lbs of plastic on the whole car. My '59 Buick's interior only has plastic over the speedo/gauges, a plastic dome light lense, shift knob and the acrylic plastic of the steering wheel. That's really it. In '62, Pontiac is not much different & still has steel coat hooks, kick panel vents & door lock knobs. More importantly, every surface & componet in the interior is designed: no flat featureless panels, no disjointed/disharmonious treatments- all levers & knobs match and compliment each other. It's a damned well done package. >>"Then we know that shifter has a ? 10" throw ?"<< I don't know but regardless: cars properly equipped were blisteringly quick. Bend in handle does not effect linkage or shifting action: the lever pivots just below the floor and doesn't know if the handle is straight or bent. Pontiac also used HD Hurst linkage as standard equipment: I've seen the shifts described as "smooth & quick as grease". Box is a Borg-Warner unit borrowed from the Corvette. Doesn't really matter how long the throws are: neither short or long is better, only different. >>"Native Iron V8s, there they are and what they lack in dazzling brilliance they make up for in size and brute low RPM force."<< The one above is brilliant for developing 465 HP and ripping a mid-12 quarter miles off. If one has to open the hood to explain why one's motor's better...... the old saying 'Actions speak louder than words' springs to mind. >>' Then the engine is nearly at the axle center"<< Nope- part of the formost cylinder is at the axle line- rest of the V-8 is behind the axle. Weight distribution (1965) is still damned respectable: 56/44.

Friend of mine could buy anything he wanted to (does a $20K 1911 Case steam tractor count?) bought a circa '02 M-B S430. Some electrical part took a freakin' 6 or 8 months to arrive, then one day I went over and the front suspension was collapsed. "Never again!" he said. Dumped it when the warranty was due to expire. The 2 Cadillacs he had before the Merse he speaks well of. Now is on his 3rd loaded Tahoe- absolutely loves them.

LTB- have you been reading CR???