balthazar

No problem....uh... you were going to keep this topic going like the Eldo one, right? At least for the years there were sheetmetal differences? ('55-58, '67-02) You'd get another chance to work that '71 pic in....

I still think LED taillights look unbearably cheap (unless 'veiled' like the '00 deVille). Look where we saw them before: traffic lights, garbage trucks, school buses and hand-held electronic games. Real high class company there.

I don't care what she or any other celebrity does. They don't influence me in the least either way- she can ride a mule nude in front of my house or park her toyoduh in a HC spot for 6 months straight and live out of it- still don't care. Another clueless idiot desperate to get on the 'IN / HOT' list.

Grotesque, much worse than the utterly charmless current version. Interior is as dark & dank as a coal mine. Wow... not only a thinly-skinned plywood plank of a bench seat, but a column shift and floor-mounted parking brake (and a blatantly off-center console). If the kids (40+ yr old on average) stampede after this one... I am at a loss to explain anything...

eBay auctions... for a 46K annual unit toyota SUV?? Don't think so.

I think attributing Intrepid sales primarily to the fact that it was FWD is a stretch. The very short on-lot numbers show consumers are snapping them up; they're not languishing at the dealer, that's for sure. Suggests Charger production is still ramping up. Charger is not a retro design, reg, sorry. Name: yes, design: no. "Redneck" is not a legitimate charge IMO. It's sales will increase. Also, there's no reason not to combine Charger & Magnum sales numbers in an analysis of how well this type of Dodge model is appealing to the market-- the cars could (should??) easily have the same model name. What are those figures together to date?

1950:

>>"snaggletoothed lush Kirsten"<< :lol:!! Let's see pics of the Land Rover & Ferrari she also owns, eh? What- I should shush up about that? If I had A-list or B-list actor money, I'd have a slammed, flame-spitting, black suede Merc coupe with a full race flattie & a 'FAA-QUE' plate and I'd do burnouts on the Hollywood Walk of Fame sidewalk.

There was a '49 S60S sitting at a diner not far from me: unlicensed, some surface rust, cracked glass, dirty. It was F'ing beautiful.

Me too!! This particular baby was registered at 16,000 lbs loaded, delivering gas or oil for Humble Oil out of Elizabeth NJ, a subsidiary of Standard Oil. When I bought it in '03, it was still wearing a circa 1964 municipal plate, so apparently it worked for at least 25 years (it's a '40). 2 owners before me account for it back to '77.... it could've been working for up to 37 years, who knows. This era Fords are damned tough.

Please... and bullsh!t. The 300-M was just as MASSIVE a change from the 300-L AND it was separated by like 34 years... but it still followed the lettercar order. No- the PR is BS: DCX wanted to use "C" because they wanted to. For their PR to make even a lick of sense, they would've started at "A".

>>"So is the difference because this is the big rig version, then? "<< Different cabs, too. I'm not positive, but I would imagine for some engine-related reason, GMC needed to get more airflow underhood or some models had physically larger engines. In '60, GMC began offering an I6 and V-6 diesel, in addition to the 5 V-6 gas units, an I-6 gas and a 702 CI V-12. The lineup of GMC was staggering & unsurpassed worldwide, with multiple models in series 1000, 1500, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 5000, 5500, 6000, 7000, 860, 8000 and 9000. Using the same nose with different hoods was merely being efficient.

Fascinating: that red '60 Edsel is the 2nd car I've seen pics of (the 1st being a blue 2-dr hardtop) converted to the prototype design for '60. Production '60 Edsels have a grille very much like that on a '59 Pontiac, and I believe the side trim is prototypical on this red job, too.

Spark plug placement has everything to do with the shape of the combustion chamber. A hemispherical (or in the case of the Hemi: a shrouded hemisphere), central location is paramount. But wedge chambers have the plug offset to one side. Modern multiple-discharge, high energy sparks reduce the importance of plug location to a degree, also.

I would think the wet traction issue could be remedied with an advanced tread design, and the sidewall issue with increased plys. I see no way aorund the danger of a blowout, tho...

It's BV... nope: there's only 1 reason. ;)

Lincolns used unibody construction beginning in MY '58- I am not even certain that the '61 & up 4-dr convertible had any extra bracing; where would it be placed in a UB? If so, then there is no structural reason to have a pillared sedan in the era of hardtops when the convert was the same basic shell without a steel roof. Unless there IS a lot of extra bracing/ assembly work cost that Lincioln did not care to add to the sedan.... It's crazy any way I look at it.

Prolly lacked many things: it was a 3/8th scale model. '62 Ford Seattle-ite XXI.

"At the time I thought"...??? She's frickin' 23- can't she remember what she thought about her first car anymore? What are we talking about: 5 years?? Gotta say- she is a dynamite POA tho.

That was the reason. Are we going to have to strike the letter N from the alphabet next?

Stories like this (it's not a joke, right?) always remind of the described lifestyle of the Unibomber... and how he may have been onto something. I have no desire to have my every move filmed & databanked, and I have no desire to PAY for that, either.

When my Buick is finished it should dip into the 10s in the quarter, which would bury O.C.'s C6, but the 145 top end would be eclipsed handily. Come to think of it, couldn't match the handling either (tho the prowess there will surprise everyone).

>>"Overweight?"<< Every car out there could be lighter, every single one. But when I read overweight charges against the 4500-lb mercedes roadster, I'll conceed to an overweight charge against the Solstice. As it is, 350 lbs vs. the mazda is nothing, especially when it comes with more confident handling. >>"No Trunkspace?"<< meh- minor, but OK. Silly ideal in this class any way you look at it. >>"Somewhat chintzy interior bits?"<< Nah- not 'obvious' and too subjective. >>"Limited production=ADM standard"<< Limited production only adds appeal to an aspirational vehicle. Undoubtedly it will creep upwards if demand remains strong. Unlimited production didn't seem to do the miata's appeal & resale much good over time.

I really don't understand the Lincoln thing either. Hardtops, tho available in every domestic marque down to the most affordable, were always more upscale than sedans, and Lincoln already had a 4-dr pillarless shell- the convertible. I would like to know the reason they re-engineered the shell & glass to include a B-pillar... only reason had to be it cost less per vehicle to remove the convertible-specific bracing and slam a B-pillar in. It was out of step with the market of the time, tho, especially when almost all others offered both in the same shell.

You know I am fuming at this: If DCX wanted to acknowledge the heritage of the 300, the current model would be called the 300-N like it should've been all along. To slap & spit in the the face of the past then mine it for shiny bits is repugnant.