balthazar

MO: '64 is my favorite year for '60s full-size Olds. Love the 'convertible'-look top, the rear quarter peaked edges, the interesting taillight design. 98's had the coolest ribbed rockers, and of course the Starfire's textured metallic trim is really cool. Not nuts about the relatively simple front end: horizontal quad headlights within the height & plane of the grille always seem somehow... 'cheaper' isn't the right house, but it''s on the right street. Looks like it's wearing 18"s, which is too big.

>>"...definate proof there may be..."<< OK; I can live with that. ;) >>"When's the last time your favorite company felt the need to apologize for anything?"<< Not nearly my favorite, but I recall mitsubishi apologizing for the lies & cover-ups over their defects. BMW effectively apologized by sending Bangle into the dunce corner... ;) VW has mumbled something in passing, too. >>"...the entity you're defending ..."<< I am not in here to defend GM, and I do not believe that's been my primary emphasis at all. I am here to damn the media. And they've earned it in spades. There is a difference. BTW- tho I see the logic in the PR, indeed I groaned aloud when I first saw it. I knew many who enjoy pointing their finger would hold it aloft like the Stanley Cup and jeer long & loudly. Whatever; I believe their minds were already made up anyway. Thanks for the volley, enzl.

Damned fine choice, I love the '67-70s (this body style)!! Prices for nice drivers are pretty good in the States: around $5K, tho they are not what I would call 'easily found'. Repro parts are not plentiful, either.... for some reason I cannot figure, the collector market has not really warmed up to these fantastic cars yet. They got excellent road test/drivability feedback when new. Good luck in your search!

Ahhh, one of the truely fun facts about automobiles: in at least one vehicle ('69 Mustang), this was called "Rim-Blow DeLuxe". :D

See- there's a very notable value & collectibility difference between a GN and a GNX (the ultimate, limited-production, last-year GN). Sounds like you were seeing GN prices...

Sixty8- does the radial motor diagram refer to a car by any chance??

Wow, you sure are leaning heavily on those few PR paragraphs, aren't you, enzl? What I want to know is why it took you so long to trot that out, anyway? You could've destroyed all other possibilities & theories merely buy quoting it in your first post, adding 200 exclaimation points and walking away. No; you never said all GM products are crap but you also never even implied that ONLY SOME were crap, you know; like GM's own OFFICIAL PR has verified. Fanciful theory. Sure; a strong personal bias is unlikely to change the rear seat hip room measurement, but it can and repeatedly has altered the perception of a vehicle unjustly, to the point of turning away consumers. The end result is the same; altered... use the term 'realities' instead of 'facts' if you prefer. What is the perception when -say- the vehicle that placed 1st in a comparo is judged the 'winner' with 210 points (over half of which are totally subjective) and the vehicle that placed 3rd with 205 points (again: over half being completely subjective). The perception is that the 3rd place vehicle 'lost' and is a 'lesser' car than the 1st place car. We've read many comments in threads here that only serve to justify the rankings of 3 or 5 strangers who wrote about driving the cars; 3rd place means 'loser', 3rd place is ''uncompetitive, 3rd place 'isn't good enough', 3rd place 'won't turn around the company'... even tho the mostly subjective vote of 5 individuals (who no one here has even tried to show has any degree of objectivity) separated 1st and 3rd by less than 3%. And I call it being biased. The purest truth spoken in this thread.

I thought auditioning strippers for a go-go bar was #2.... {scratches head...}

Ahh God; they did that for years and years, used to drive me batsh!t, tho I never see that old of a BMW on the road anymore. I would hear 'german engineering' in radio spots, then stare at that madeningly off-center pipe in front of me on the road and just snicker. So stupid.

Mid- '70s cars naturally encompass emissions & other controls/equipment of the era, which can add to the complexity & cost of the job (tho not much if the car in question is one you're really into). I believe '75 and up Eldos had EFI... at least optionally; another complexity. Not trying to talk you out of one, the average prices are project-friendly for the most part, but know that a Cadillac will be more expensive than most others of the same era. I have been working on & off on my '59 for 10 years now. I am glad I didn't do the motor first, as I went 'all the way' and ended up doing a body-off. The bigger, more obscure and rustier the vehicle, the more time & money it'll take. Before I started, I carefully researched approximate costs and made up a list... to date the only area of restoration that exceeded my liberal estimates was bodywork (and the actual blew the estimate out of the water). Well actually, the motor will too, but that's primarily because of what I want out of it, which has changed over the years. When you love the car, it's easy to get picky & demanding about every little inferior spot... so get the best-condition example you can find... to the point of buying a rust-free one from elsewhere in the country and having it shipped. A local club for the same make will likely produce a member willing to check a potential purchase out for you if you can't make the trip. BTW- are you sure "fully restored" GNXs are only around 10K-13K?? A few years back really nice GNs were in the high teens- GNXs are even more valuable.... unless the market for them has depreciated since for some reason??? I haven't kept on their values for a few years, but that sounds surprisingly low.

I've been a 3-time a week average listener for many years now, but I also have not decided that (oh; and it's) $13/month is worth it. Josh- how the hell do you listen to the radio on your phone? Do you have it on speaker, lying open on the table or something? Do you then carry it with you going out of the room? Seems like a huge inconvenience.

'cause it blows chunks. More than 1 land rover uses exhaust-level brake lights. Another boneheaded element is volvo's taillights: on the wagon the lenses are like 3 feet tall, yet the portion lit while braking is a tiny 1.5" x 1.5" square. I don't get it- volvo's entire claim to fame is safety; what gives here?

>>"This, while true about all mainstream media outlets in general, does not make even those with bias wrong, per se."<< It sure as hell doesn't support them being right! >>"Noone here has brought forth a compelling reason that proves that these auto-writers are incorrect in their judgements"<< Sure some one has- read the earlier posts. Bias exists and is widespread, caused by a handful of factors. Bias clouds judgement and alters opinions; human nature. One of the most wildly illogical statements ever made in the automotive cosmos goes something like this: 'I had bad luck with Brand X I owned in the early '80s, and since then I've never bought another domestic car and never will.' How many times have you read/heard that statement? It's in this very thread in another post!!!! That's textbook 'bias' multiplied by textbook 'illogic'. How far behind do you think 'erroneous/innaccurate judgements' are? Look, no one claims that all 'anti-domestic' opinions are not justified, just as no one truely believes all import-favoring opinions are (whoops- my bad; whole bunch of people believe that one!). I avoid absolutes like the plague because I've seen what they do and are not. What I and others here are saying is that a great & suprising percentage of 'anti-domestic' opinion is simply not supported by reality, and another great percentage is simply bias & stale hot air. Those blindly loyal to the 'superiority' of many imports are unable to see or admit that. >>"...and I noticed noone has answered how non-media types like the mass of people who buy from the 'bad guys', research firms and consumer groups also concur with assertions that many of the products brought forth are inferior!"<< You answer for this lies in the unknown motivations behind this couple's actions: >>"Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors."<< Analyzing the reasons for competitors' success is related, but still a whole 'nuther thread. Let's keep this focused and it may stay under 100 posts. >>"So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?"<< You assume that this statement is indicative of complete 100% factual truth, rather than considering that it is, at least in part, addressing the 'media truth' and popular opinion of some groups.

turbo200: >>"Do you beleive magazines won't cater to what the broad spectrum of thier readers want to read about?"<< Good, you get my point. Keep Consumer Reports at the forefront of your thoughts here. Openly & vehemently catering to popular opinion creates a breeding ground for subjectivity & bias. If readers really do want constant coverage of MB & BMW, what are the writers going to do: bring up slacking reliability, substandard quality & self-parodying styling?? No- positive reviews are the 'other shoe' of constant coverage- they have to be inseparable or the subscriptions will decrease. 'Journalism' is steadily being reduced to 'sales'. Is it possible that the writers really believe everything they write? I admit it's possible- but that still doesn't mean it's objective. Money will convince a lot of people of a lot of things. Their livelyhood is directly resultant of being popular. In other words, they have a vested interest. >>"Do you beleive magazine editors and writers don't have a right to be disgusted by being treated to years, decades of inferior products? I do not. They should never approach current & future products while referencing long-past, completely unrelated product. CR does this repeatedly. There's no validity in that and the practice (seemingly limited to derogitory editorialism on domestic models) undermines their credibility. Why did I read mention of the Cimarrron in a CTS test, yet no mention of chronic-bodyrot-in-6-months in reviews of the Murano? Again; how is that not favoritism? >>"Ask someone on this board who samples every car from every manufacturer for a LIVING. They are here and they are reading, simply ask for thier unbiased opinion. Remember they live and breath in every single car this world has to offer. They have tested more cars than you or I have, that's for sure. Ask the newspaper editor who approved the front page section I saw as a kid: 375K GM vehicles recalled for a minor matter on the top half of Page 1, 1 million plus VWs recalled for a more serious defect buried on a Page 8 sidebar. I wasn't into cars nearly as much as I was even a short time later, but I knew right then even at 14 years old that the media deck was stacked. The overwhelming body of evidence since then (over 20 years of study) has only supported that eye-opening experience. You need to read deeper; if you already agree with the bulk of what you read, you're 3/4ths the way to total acceptance of everything.

I'm with ocn: a '54 Plymouth Ute from Down Under.

I would honestly like to see that proven with figures. Me too. After all, if you don't

School is to the real world as a petting zoo is to the jungle. Go read clarkson (when he's being 'serious') for a clearcut example of how a openly biased & gleefully stereotypical 'journalist' is not only NOT fired but can increase his exposure (Top Gear on TV). Magazines do not care about objectivity, only sales. Want proof? Let’s look at the frequency of -say- BMW and mercedes road tests and objectivity. Would you agree that regular repeated exposure to the same makes/models would breed familiarity and therefore favoritism (not to mention the influence of free press junkets to bavaria and editorial pressure to sell more magazines)? After all, that is human nature... but just because it's natural doesn't make it objective. And when your job requires objectivity and your experience is lopsided, you cannot be objective. That is also human nature… and precisely the definition of a bias (”An inclination of temperament or outlook, esp prejudice. See predilection: a prepossession in favor of something, preference.”). Cadillac, bmw & mercedes sell in comparative numbers in the same segment of the U.S. market (I tried but could not locate same-year annual sales numbers for all 3). Let’s see if frequency of magazine coverage has any relation to the frequency of consumer purchase, shall we? 2002 Car & Driver ~ BMW & Mercedes coverage: 01/02 : MB C32 test, BMW 745 preview, MB SL500 preview, BMW M3 short take. 02/02 : BMW 330i test, MB ML500 short take. 03/02 : MB SL55 preview. 04/02 : MB SL500 test, MB CLK430 test, BMW X5 4.4 long term 05/02 : MB E-class preview, BMW X5 4.6 short take. 06/02 : BMW 745 test. 07/02 : BMW 330 test, MB CLK preview, BMW M3 short take 10/02 : MB C320 test, BMW 330 test, MB CLK500 test. 11/02 : MB SL55 test, BMW M5test, MB E500 test 12/02 : MB V-12 turbo preview, MB E55 preview What possible earthly purpose is there to test the bmw 330 3 times within 1 year? How much different is a BMW X5 4.4 and an X5 4.6 that back-to-back features are necessary, or even remotely interesting? Some may tell us that this is in the name of entertainment. Frankly, I’m bored out of my gourd and so are an increasing number of other readers- hence the increasing level of journalistic criticism. 2002 Car & Driver ~ Cadillac coverage: 02/02 : CTS test, Cien concept 07/02 : XLR preview Total Features: BMW : 10 MB : 14 Cadillac : 2 (plus 1 concept car) I need to know- how is this not favoritism?

Not at all. "Fictionalizing" referred specifically to your words "you can't"... "A fact"... "everyone"... " the obvious". I could (and did), it wasn't, not everyone and it's not obvious. Once the claims start piling up, I am forced to counter. You are overstating to the point of absolutes, and that is fictionalizing. Call it semantics if you wish, but you know I'm accurate. And if you really believe that the points made in sub-par reviews all exist without prejudice, embelishment or undue focus, then I can't help you. But I have a lovely wheezing, vibrating, rattling, foil-thin, sagging-plastic death-trap --otherwise known as a mid-'90s sentra-- as a consolation prize for you. Like razor, I'm not about to go off on an hours-long research project... for what; you know you're right. Safe & sound behind a wall of absolutes. Entire Corporation produced nothing but the absolute worst crap imaginable while every single other manufacturer was all tied with each other in every segment with nothing but "class-leading" product. You've convinced me; make room- I'm changing sides.

Yeah; interesting 'out-there' thinking, PG. I agree with you: don't know if it's feasible but it definately sounds unique & appealing.

CTS was in showrooms 01-02-02. First I personally saw of it were rooftop spy pics snapped from the filming of one of the 2 Matrix sequels.

Makes sense: the air "sees" a bigger drop off behind the cab with no tailgate to flow over. In other words, tailgate down creates a bigger vacuum. What would be better than either is a bed cover. I've ridden in the back of an empty pick-up for a long interval once, laying down and moving around; the ways air flows over & thru it is quite distinct & noticable. The experienced was quite helpful in loading a pick-up properly with potentially 'airborne' objects. I'll give you a call in 2009... :( :angry:

You're talking about the entire Corporation's product line unilaterally; what other single company has all class-leading products? Oh, that's right; NONE. Let's see you defend 20 years of any singular auto manufacturer as unilaterally class leading...you see, you can't. And you know even as you gloss over every single model, there are a number that are at the top of their segment during this period. '92 STS is one great example. "you can't"... "A fact"... "everyone"... " the obvious"... It's exactly this type of generalization and fictionalizing that gives modern 'journalists' a bad name and garners them so much scorn. This is exactly how charges of 'biased' are earned & justified.

I haven't run my in-2000-pieces Buick for obvious reasons, but it is being build expressly to run high 10s, low 11s.

The wood in my Grand Prix is real: American Walnut. Thing I find humerous about the entire wood discussion is all real wood in modern cars is sealed under a 1/4 inch of shellac, like the tabletops in a chain seafood restaurant. Frankly I am flabbergasted that there are those who cannot stop fondling & rapping dash plastics, but have nary a whisper about how the wood feels. Half of wood's appeal is visual, half tactile. There is no wood feel in today's cars- what a shame.

I'd like to get big waxy blocks of time for X-mas. I'd put a bunch of them towards getting my Buick back in one piece. Come to think of it, I will need an aluminum driveshaft for it, too. And if it's not to much trouble- I'd like a hurry-up on the global warming thing: I work outside and it was 10 this morning.