balthazar

Nice pics, MM. Especially appreciated: very good interior shot of the LeSabre- dig the 'halo' intrument cluster that encircles the steering column. That gas pedal must've came straight from GMC Coach. Were you making the men in black twitchy leaning out over the automotive Mona Lisa like that? I HAVE to see this car in person someday. Tho it's interior is spartan and dated- the exterior lines of the Aerovette are still completely awesome. I've also been impressed with the SS since it debuted. It seems really long in pics; what would it compare to in size?

capriceman- nice pics! That's not chrome blistering in the LeSabre's 'jet' exhaust, is it?? We need to pass the C&G hat if it is.

Pshaw- that!?! wheelbase 125", overall 214". I am way too literal....

IMO- the Porsche hood cutline shows up the worst, because of the slope of the nose you look into[/i] the gap, plus the rubber nose is pretty wavy in the above pic- catching your eye even moreso. The '911' is much tighter of a car dimensionally; there may have been more restrictions on where to run the cutline, IDK. But there's something unrefined about the infiniti hood seam- just looks too arbitrary & 'rounded square' rather than actually designed intentionally. Something about it says Saturn L to me, too. Not a huge deal but could be better. Overall I much prefer the current g35 to this, esp the rear- NG is getting far too bloated and derivative. The 'zit' taillight lenses have to go, too.

Nah- that's the Chrysler d'Elegance: no quad fins, no 'moonroof backlight', 115" wheelbase. SixtyS88 is hinting for something with more like a 135"+ wheelbase. '66 Duesenberg proposal had the dimensions (137" / 244"), but not the design cues, designer location or vintage. There was an earlier '59 Duesenberg proposal (not the convert that shows up via Google- this was a 2-dr hardtop/coupe), but it bears no relation whatsoever to the '66, I have no dimension specs for the '59 and I cannot guesstimate it's size. It's still shy on some of the clues, too. Car in question has to be something else... of european origin...

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....