balthazar

I passed on the opening description: the implied extreme wheelbase coupled with flip-out windows threw me. After reading the second description, I am still stumped. A 3500 Crew Cab long bed truck is in the neighborhood of 250"- that's colossal. A '70 Cadillac Series 75 is 245" overall. This should narrow it down to about the exact vehicle you're talking about, but cars this long are like hen's teeth. What did spring to mind, tho it 's not that long and doesn't meet a number of the clues is the Argonaut- but that in itself is 'hen's teeth' for most enthusiasts. {thinking}... it's not domestic (and you didn't say that it was).... Therefore I am out of my element for the most part. Awaiting reveal.... and there had better be at least 1 pic...

Ven- oops- missed one- edited above post to show: there was both a TS and a PA in '62. No- no direct competitor to the TS/PA per say. Everybody downsized slightly in '61 (Caddy & Lincoln), but Linc had only 1 series '61-67, the 2-model Continental. There was no other competition then. Actually- I do like the idea of a "Buick LaSalle"- it does meld well with Buick's other model names and I like removing most temptation for 'journalists' to extrapolate a flimsy tie-in with a supposed 'failure' if 'LaSalle' came back under Cadillac.

IH Scout was -I guess- a pickup from the beginning ('61). There was a steel Cab Top, a steel Travel-Top and a vinyl Cab Top, all removable to expose the 5' bed. Actualy I'm kind of surprised IH stuffed a 5' bed in a vehicle with only a 100" wheelbase. I should clarify: the Travel-Top was ala a '70s Blazer: the roof covered everything rearward of the windshield. Both Cab Tops only covered the front seat area, leaving the bed exposed. Scouts of this generation were 3-passenger jobs at the most (don't know offhand if there was a 'bucket seat' version).

Don't think so- I have a frightening quantity of print ads and the only time a '62-63 Park Avenue is either shown or mentioned was a '63 ad that showed all 12 models. And Cadillac simply did not address specific model features such as 'easier to park' in this era. There were some ads aimed at women, but again- the PA was not mentioned or featured. Maybe in local advertising...

It is 'flat wrong' in that nissan/datsun was NOT the first manufacturer to offer a compact pick-up in the U.S..Actually, neither was Crosley. American Austin/American Bantam offered a pick-up that was truely compact beginning in '33.

OK- let's muddle thru this chronologically. 1954 ~ concept/auto show car; a one-off. 1958 ~ 6239X - Series 62 4-dr hdtp - 216.8" 6239X - Series 62 Export Sedan 4-dr hdtp - 216.8" 6239EX - Series 62 Extended Deck Sedan 4-dr hdtp - 225.3" 6239EDX - Series 62 Sedan deVille 4-dr hdtp - 225.3" 1959 - 1960 ~ No shorter sedan/hardtop models offered. 1961 ~ 6329L - Series 63 Sedan deVille 6-window sedan - 222" 6339B - Series 63 Sedan deVille 4-window sedan - 222" 6399C - Series 63 Town Sedan - 215" (mid-year introduction) 1962 ~ 6289C - Series 63 Town Sedan - 215" 6329L - Series 63 Sedan deVille 6-window sedan - 222" 6339B - Series 63 Sedan deVille 4-window sedan - 222" 6389D - Series 63 Park Avenue - 215" 1963 ~ 6329L - Series 63 Sedan deVille 6-window sedan - 223" 6339B - Series 63 Sedan deVille 4-window sedan - 223" 6389D - Series 63 Park Avenue - 215" The '58 is not called a "Park Avenue"- that model name only applies to 1962-63. No 'TS/PA' after '63. The intent was an interesting flip-flop. In '58 the 4-drs were shorter overall than the coupes/convertible. '58 saw the intro of an extended deck sedan to better match the rest of the series. By '61 the opposite was in effect: offer a shorter 4-dr now that the 4-drs & 2-drs were the same length. It was designed to offer more maneuverability in tight confines. However, the '60s versions were NOT popular sales-wise and it was dropped.

Oh; torn away a long time ago: I did not read the link, I haven't read one in a long while. Happy to provide 'squeaky wheel service', still haven't read why such drivel is regularly posted. These gibbering chimps are NOT relevent nor even marginally informed. There must be well over 50 newspaper-level 'automotive journalists' across the country- please pick any other soon to break up the monotony.

I remember looking over Dad's shoulder at the red Indian Head high beam indicator in our '70 Catalina 4-dr sedan, Pepper Green with the 400. Had it until '80. I don't recall his earlier iron: '63 Catalina 4-dr hardtop, '62 Chevy Biscayne 2-dr sedan. I have one memory of his father's gold '72 Gran Ville 4-dr hardtop, 455-powered, gliding by in his driveway. A '76 replaced it, tho I don't recall that one. The '78 Sedan deVille that came next I recall very well. My mother's mom had a '64 Rambler American 2-dr sedan I can dimly recall, tho the '72 Super Beetle that followed it is easier. It was the '76 Seville that really made an impact, tho. I am a 3rd generation multiple Pontiac owner; grandfather: 7, father: 3, me: 7.

Yet another piece from these 2 asses?? Why?

Ford TT is quite a different beast than the Model T pick-up. Same nose but much longer chassis & bed. I wouldn't call the Model T pick-up a compact relative to the time, tho. 'nissan' is flat wrong. I would love to find the guy who wrote this.

That's not kudos.... Buick GNX, 547 built, 345HP 231 V-6. Showroom stock: 1/4-mile in 13.1. Bad to the bone. Don't make me come over there, 91z...

Post your note from Flintstone, reg. What did his wet nurse write?

Lemme hear a kudo to Buick Engineering and it's a deal.

But the ferrari enzo died quickly and quietly -- despite heroic horsepower numbers and better performance than any classic-era ferrari ever delivered. Some of us saw it coming from the get-go. Look; I'm a hip auto journalist!

Well, four-hunnert-sumthin-thousand-dollars don't buy much these days, I guess.

What the article fails to acknowledge in extrapolating 30-yr old market performance forward to today is, Ford dropped the ball on the 'stang after '70 and handed the market to the Camaro/Firebird. Opponents of retro-styling & Ford haters would probably agree- who's to say Ford won't drop the ball again? BTW- Camaro sold 220,000 units in '67 (Firebird sold another 82K) but the Mustang was only down 90K from '66 to '67. Guess there was still room in the segment, eh? Where's the evidence that proves there no more room beyond the current Mustang's volume?

Up until the 'update' post, I was considering that very reason. Today I stopped in at the local dealer that sold my Silverado to it's original owner. It's a very tiny dealer but it seemingly does a very solid business. However, because of the diminuative size, multiple people have told me he only works on vehicles he sold originally and turns others away. He simply does not have time to accomodate others. His business doesn't suffer; he's booked.

91z4me= >>So your telling me that engineering tests and results from 30+ years ago are just as important and as acurate as those from 5 years ago with all the advancements in technology?<< The basic principals & components of turbocharging have not changed dramatically in many decades. Primary advances have been in secondary systems (electronics) and minor incremental improvements such as seals, bearings & materials. >>Sorry but engineering data and results from decades ago in turbo technology do NOT equal modern engineering experience and data!<< Don't get all hung up on 'newer is better'. Turbochargers are NOT modern in the least. But the point was that the elementary research was done & implemented beginning long before saab wheezed onto the scene. BTW- the 9-3 aero is only just approaching the power levels of the GNX almost 20 years later, and with VVT and other gimmicks. >>...lets remember that the bulk of GMs roots supercharger experience is rooted in the old Detroit Diesels, which GM owned at the time.<< GM's supercharging experience dates much farther back than then. >>The GNX had modifications done but (PAS I think), the TTA used PAS, the Grand Prix Turbo from 1989-1991 were McClaren built and installed, the Turbo Sunbirds were GM Brazil engines not GMNA.<< Translation: 'GM couldn't do it if they wanted to'. Get ready.... GN/GNX engines were developed in-house by Buick Special Products Engineering. ASC/McLaren handled body modifications & pre-delivery testing/inspection (including chassis dyno-testing), but they never installed or opened a motor. TTA used left-over GNX-spec motors with slightly better heads, slightly slower turbo & no speed governors. They were faster than the Corvette in '89. If I had facts on hand regarding the SC GP, I would address that charge, but when I do not, I don't. But I am wondering if ASC/McLaren did much of anything engineering-wise on the SC GP when they did much of nothing on the GNX/TTA.

I've had running arguments with people there who've been clearly in the wrong ('The '48 Tucker is a V-6!'), and I can smell the reasons thru the phone lines: 'I'm a regular contributor, I don't know who you are but as the self-appointed WikiSentry, I must revert your edit!'. Other times the editorial agendas come thru loud & clear, requiring extensive number crunching to prove to them they are, as known before checking, wrong again. Like dart sez- for general overviews it's fine, but for specific info- don't make any bets using Wiki as your proof. {...goes off to see if last night's wiki edit was F-ed with...}

wikipedia = meh. GMI is also off, but maddeningly enough, Roger & Me is still up there, assumedly as some sort of factual reference. Who votes for that to be removed?? 3 yes's and it's gone....

razor!! You're back!! Where you been?

I'm saying there is no evidence that saab's turbo experience contributed anything to any non-saab GM turbo engineering AFAIK, and that GM already had realms of turbocharging experience to draw on, Period. I did not address the level of quality in saab turbo engines or engineering department anywhere, whatsoever, Period. Unfortunately & erroneously, the general perception is that GM finds all it's 'good tech' from 'outsiders'. saab may well be competent, but no one bothers to give the core GM any credit for anything anymore- the automatic assumption always is: 'GM has a great turbo engine now- must be thanks to saab.'. Forget saab- go look into GM's past and learn about GM's value here. Add supercharging to your assignment while you're at it. I'm sure GM learned all about that abroad and didn't once consult their own 60 years of experience there, either.

Real sweet piece of candy! This is the first year of the 'stacked' horizontal planes (fender tops here, hood bow a bit higher, decklid a bit higher), a design trait that Cadillac used successfully for a decade. I always loved that transition thru the length of the car, and the subtle pontoon in the rear quarters. Not a year I'd pick personally, but a great Caddy nonetheless. Nice find. You & S88 really lucked out.

I believe it was Herb Adams, legendary Pontiac suspension designer & racer who put together the Fire-Am package (aftermarket), but I can't guarantee that; I'd have to look it up. EDIT: Thanks to Ven's timely link, I see my memory ain't too bad.

Disappointing that bmw didn't fix the rear on this model- could've been a good opportunity to ease into a design repair for the NG. Also, why does the 6-series have such a FWD proportion/overhang? It's enormous.