balthazar

I prefer opposed wipers as opposed to the standard go-the-same-direction ones the majority of vehicles have. To tell the truth, I also prefer the vintage style (imagine that!): stainless opposed arms, stainless blades, park tight to the bottom of the windshield; you don't even notice them. The valley that most hidden wipers park into today --what with the ubitquitous contoured plastic pan-- catches my eye much more. Hell, they don't even disappear anymore! The vintage system is much more elegant than the giant 'spider legs' many cars have now. I don't know what happened, but progress took a nap on this one stylistically. I positively abhor windshield washers mounted on the hood- nothing looks cheaper than those twin plastic zits. God those are awful. BTW- we can thank Pontiac (in the U.S. at least) for hidden wipers- intoduced in '67. Pontiac (along with other Divisions no doubt) also offered articulated wipers beginning in '65 (Cadillac may have been a year earlier).

saab just does not have the retail coverage / consumer base to pay for it.

Have you seen anything factual or are you just agreeing that PWs are lighter because we're in 'modern times' where everything is 'better'?

It absolutely was true, and yes, yes they do.Now, have any insight as to how the inverse regarding power windows may be true today?

I don't care what she does, she's got an indefinate spot on my list.

1. 1969; X-4; Banshee I'd welcome a little more detail on this answer. Not aware of the '69 X-4...

Impossible! Haven't you heard- VW interiors are to be emulated by all. Besides that, it's 'German-engineered'. Blasphemy.

LOL- look at that all-grey interior! What's this thing overpriced at?? And why does bmw insist on not lining up their taillights? Looks like a liftgate from another vehicle that happens to fit the opening. Whole sh!tp!le is both boring AND a mess.

Maybe you just don't go for "astounding quality", Oldsmoboi...

Are they really often crooked? Must be following mercedes' example: every single 'Kompressor' script (different models, too) I've been behind has been on crooked.

I drop off in under 3 minutes most every night, sleep 5-6 hrs on average, wake up when the alarm goes off. Back in the day I once took but two 1.5-hours naps in a 5-day stretch of being awake. I had to intentionally make myself go to sleep on the 5th day, then I slept for 14 hours. A year later I stayed awake for 3 days straight with no sleep. Pretty sure I could not do that again.

Never used to be. I've disassembled doors from both set-ups from the same year/make/model. Same glass, same tracks, yet one had a lightweight & simple crank & spring, the other had a heavy electrical motor and wiring/switches. PW's used to be much heavier, without question.

Well, if he indeed kissed him, that's a bit inappropriate. But if in fact he merely gave him a belly raspberry, then it's all fun & games.

The Fiero project was originally named Pegasus. I believe it began in '81, as spy pics surfaced as early as '82. I don't believe anything directly preceeded it, tho the '64 XP-833 Banshee did conceptually (both 2-seaters). The Series 62 was renamed the Calais for '65.

Oldsmoboi- I like that idea a lot, tho I don't know offhand how the model line-ups would work out... Couple that with divisional-proprietory engines (can we get 50%??) and I feel we're on the right track Back.

>>"what's wrong with them if they're free?"<< - They break more often than manual windows, and when they do they're far more expensive to replace/repair. - They do not work unless the key is in- requiring you to go get/dig out the key if it's not in your hand right then. - IMO- The express feature demands more attention/time if you want the window anywhere other than all the way up or down. - Some vehicles' PWs are too tempermental- audi's 'obstruction reverse' PWs get befuddled by cold weather (frost in the tracks?). - Tho it's not a concern of mine, some will quote safety issues if the car is electrically-disabled. The button-operated aspect of PW is not the problem for those who may prefer non-PW in particular vehicles, but some of the above may likely be.

General overview: it's a combination of many things, including muffler design, pipe length & diameter, exhaust crossovers, exhaust pulse overlap & number of pistons. You can change the sound by changing either the pipes or the muffler(s), but one engine is unlikely to sound very close to another of a different configuration (ie: pipes & mufflers aren't going to make a V-6 sound like a V-8...).

The only Plymouths widely-accepted as being 'ugly' are the '61-62s, and even those have their fans, of course. Most Plymouths were completely asthetically competant (that doesn't exactly say "beautiful" now, does it?), but the '57-58s were damn near pure inspiration and beauty. Lots of fine Plymouth design, IMO...

If you ask me (don't care if you didn't): not only should the badges be discontinued (they look fine tho some of the placements are off)- but the very name 'General Motors' should be downplayed and reduced in all automotive walks of life. We should never read 'GM's newest 4.4L Northstar...' but always read 'Cadillac's newest 4.4L Northstar...' Far too much empahsis on 'GM' devalues the divisions... YellowJacket- nice job, saw it coming tho...

Too bad Bugatti isn't in business anymore. No- not that one. I knew the answer because of the 13-liter clue. Only one that matches that tidbit.

I was just pondering PW today while driving home. I have no problem with either and yes: I would prefer a choice here. I know it goes against common perception, but not everyone wants PW. My '94 F-150 has cranks (regular cab) and I prefer them there. My '04 2500HD has PW and they are a bit fussy what with the express down feature on the fronts and all. But that's a Crew Cab, so there is a bit more reason to have PW. My '64 GP has PW and they are hot whether the key is in or not. That's a great feature that you don't get today. I grew up with too many crank-window vehicles so I like those fine. Most people are far too lazy as it is. I know, I know: it's 'convinience', not laziness. Right.

Once again- the eyes are fine. The something that's not right is that interior for $42K....

Hawiian weather is divine. Not to mention if it's too hot, a 30-minute drive can put you in a zone 40-degrees colder. I work outdoors summer & winter. Living in Jersey most all of my life has accustomed me to high humidity- so I can handle just about all of it. I would rather deal with 90 degrees/ 90% humidity than temps in the low 20s and lower with wind.

The point about the saab key was that if it made others want to see the car it fit, I would find the interior embarassing and would want to avoid that scenario. This is supposed to be an upscale interior?? An '06 aero convert starts at $42K- what I saw was fitting for something half that price. Materials are one thing- I did not fondle the car as I didn't know the owner (it was a convert parked on the jobsite), but I'm not addressing those. Most passerbys don't fondle other people's cars but they do look; it's the visual impression I'm referring to. The flat plane of the instrument panel (as opposed to the overall dash) and the plethora of air vent grilles slaps you in the face- too much and too dated. The rest was simply mediocre. I've not made it secret here of my disdain for saab's existance within GM, but the look-over of the 9-3 yesterday was an unsolicited affirmation of my opinion: there's nothing aspirational here whatsoever. No wonder saab is in such trouble.

>>"Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. "<< I believe that should have read: 'the crash is more severe for lighter vehicles'. >>"...the Institute's 40 mph offset test.... The barrier's deformable face... makes the forces in the test similar to those involved in a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight, each going just less than 40 mph."<< This does not make sense on the surface of it. Hitting a stationary object at 40 MPH should not be comparable to hitting an object moving towards you at 40 MPH. The latter should roughly double the kinetic energy encountered.