balthazar

Bullsh!t. saab has an image- the car of choice for pot-smoking college professors in their 50s. A "quirky" brand that dare not break away from such esoteric trivalties as a key in the console or all 22 worldwide saab loyalists wail & moan. saab can only mean what it's meant for the last 25 years: FWD 4-banger hatchbacks with particularly upright windshields. Sure they have 1 or 2 other models outside that now... and they are verbally trounced by the 'faithful' and one of those's days are numbered. It's these few "iconic" features that hamstring the development & growth of the brand... the few things that mark what is otherwise a merely somewhat competitive product in a ragingly ferocious segment. Pontiac has a long history of building performance cars for the enthusiast, moreso than saab by a long shot. Their path has been a bit muddled of recent times, tho the GTO & Sostice (& the G6 in a lesser capacity, IMO) are right back on track. At least Pontiac is not saddled with the albatross of -say- using an Indian Head emblem and 3 2bbl carbs or encuring the rejection of the faithful.

The A-pillar & windshield I do believe are shared with the Toro, and they supposedly both are the same bodies (E??), but they share nothing else visual. Perhaps the firewall/cowl area, but the different frames are going to dictate unique floorpans- another likely shared area. These are some of the most different "same" bodies ever....

Interesting question. The term "small block" is relative: there must co-exist a 'big block' within the same division for there to be a smaller block. Chevy's '55 265 had no big block brother until '58 and the 348. Obviously, the same size block existed earlier: 1955, but it was not legitimately able to be referred to as a small block until '58. So for Chevy- the first small block is 1958. [/Marissa_Tomey] Olds & Buick didn't get small blocks until the '60s (the 330 and the 215 respectively) and Pontiac & Cadillac didn't 'do' small blocks.

I know what you're saying, Fly, but there's more to what Plymouth was than merely their cars from the last 10 years. If we can lament Hudson & Studebaker for what they built in the '40, '50s and '60s, why can't we likewise lament Plymouth for the same era? You know that's where I'm coming from. Plymouth's "cheapness" really didn't show until at least the '80s. Many sister Dodge/Plymouth models really were extremely similar and the differences were minor. But before that there were a lot of rock solid & interesting vehicles. But ChryCo pulled their trucks after '80 (except for the POS rebadged mitsu), leaving only the vans... and once the performance models were gone by the late '70s, the writing was on the wall. Better dead than making completely insulting cars, yes, but better alive with the chance of a rebirth than dead with no chance at all. Sixty8 nailed it: the PT Cruiser should've been a Plymouth (it was as a concept) and by now there could've been an LX Fury sport sedan and an upcoming 'cuda coupe. Instead, the bottom line for me: one more American nameplate gone, which is a federal offense and a capital crime in the automotive arena, IMO.

You could have a 1903 Buick engine in your eventual Buick and it'd still be valve-in-head. BTW- the signs are cool, but for 4 grand I'd want one a bit more authentic and also... weathered. These look a little too smooth and polished for me.

Buick folk call that the 'Star Wars' air cleaner. I'm not sure exactly when & what models wore it, but it's tight to '67 in origin. '66-67 Rivs are simply breathtaking designs.

See, I have a huge problem with this: >>"Ettore Bugatti's company went bankrupt in 1956... 35 years later the company re-surfaced under Romano Artioli... who had acquired the rights to Bugatti's famous name, and the hallowed marque set out once again to build the most amazing cars in the world. "<< This is NOT the same company, it's a totally unrelated company that is glom-ing off the residual reputation of Bugatti. It's like peeling the label off a bottle of rare vintage liquor and pasting it on a brand new bottle from another company, all the while telling you it's the same thing. Mercedes pulled this same sh!t with the maybach, a company unrelated to either mercedes or benz in the past, yet mercedes stole the entire history & reputation of maybach and claimed it as their own. Toss the whole '98 "merger" nightmare in the mix and you have the key to the riddle: scumbags. And the lawyers & lawmakers that allow this sort of bullsh!t are also scumbags.

Pish-posh; sure they can. Saab is still a deep money loser, long-term. Frankly, it's well past it's peak and I don't see it gaining marketshare. I would prefer if any division/brand action was to take place, saab would be the first target.

Tucker built 51 complete units including the prototype. I would be interested to learn how many Vectors were produced in comparison.

Jesus H- here we frickin' go!! Please, I beg all of you, I appeal to your common sense, ignore all published data reporting anything less than monthly sales figures!! Do not post such articles here- they are meaningless. Damn the internet! Harley... buddy.... please.....

I don't have definate, running favorites, but here some: GM: CTS Ford: F-150 FX4 Chrysler: Magnum R/T european: none japanese: none

OK, I see, my bad. Frankly- I never in my life gave much creedence to monthly sales figures; it's only the annual numbers that tell the clear picture how that year's models performed. And I agree with Oldsmoboi: >>"Why do we never talk about Mercedes or BMW market share? "<<

I have 2 repro dealership service signs, the $20 flat round porcelin jobs: one for Authorized Pontiac Service, one for Buick. I also have an original double-sided dealership sign for Star Cars, one of the makes under Durant Motors, the Corporation Durant started after he left GM (the 2nd time). That one I found as opposed to bought. Otherwise, I try really hard to avoid buying automobilia; that's less dollars I can put into the real things....

Me too, tho I prefer the earlier W8 model.

DeSoto belongs right below Chrysler, not below Plymouth. I agree with you Harley: let's get all the old nameplates back, please!

Thank God Plymouth is gone?!!! I'll thank God when hyundai & kia are gone.

Occurances like this (a still-stocked AMC dealership) restore my faith in mankind. I'd trade 100 weed-choked AMC dealers for every 1 hyundai dealer in a microsecond. And I salute the perserverance of the owner who refused to buckle down.

This is the turkey that stuck in my mind, done by guigario. A google search turned up more winners than losers, but multiple losers. Perhaps it was a rough spot in his career. None of them are what I'd call 'beautiful' however. Nice roll bar... perhaps for drying towels on. It's not going to do anything else.

Apparently it didn't work that well- toyota is up to 4 brands now.

How can someone register a car outside of their state of residence?? Here in NJ that is strictly frowned apon- the primary motivator for attempting such being horrific insurance rates here. You have a very limited time to update your registration after moving to NJ, something like 2 weeks. I would be surprised if many other states were not the same way. Also wondering if any other audis use these engines and if they are affected as well or why not. A3 use either of these?

Right: if it's registered in one of those states and you go to have it inspected, it'll fail. This would mean the '06 TTs are for all intents & purposes, illegal in those states.

Autoweek has reported that the '06 TT models --both the 1.8L and 3.2L engines--have been pulled from sales in NY, CA, MA, ME and VT for failing to meet those states stricter emissions standards. Audi will attempt to meet those standards with it's '07 models.

I read it fine: sales Y-to-Y were up in September and also up in Oct. The fact that they dropped from Sept to Oct overshadows the fact that Y-to-Y numbers (one of the leading focal points for hand-wringing 'journalists') are up, baby. Leave it to the media to trumpet the degree of decline Sept to Oct and gloss over that collectively, Cadillac is still increasing sales and still exceeding the market growth rate. It's all good news at this point yet what catches your eye: down 19%.

I have done some cross-checking on the GMC birth issue in the past and here's some of what I have uncovered. GMC was in fact a merger of 2 truck companies, Rapid & Reliance, both purchased by GM in 1909. Both continued to operate their own factories and sell under their own nameplates until '12 when the GMC name was first used. By '12 "Rapid" & "Reliance" names were gone (for a short period trucks were badged as 'GMC-Reliance'). 'GMC' was 'General Motors Truck Company' for decades and decades, but the trucks never wore 'GMTC' nameplates, only 'GMC'. There was more than 1 entity within GMC for most of it's history, and it was in '88 that 'WhiteGMCVolvo' was created via a merger, incorporating GMC's heavy duty truck lines. However, I believe the "GMC" division in name has remained omnipresent since '12. The wiki entry is --not surprisingly-- misleading. It refers to the fact that 'GMC" never stood for 'Grabowsky...', but there was indeed an unrelated-to-GM company entitled Grabowsky Power Wagon Company. Max left Rapid in '08 to form it and it lasted until at least '20, while his brother(s) went with Rapid to GM. I have never encountered the theory that the 'G' in GMC stood for Grabowsky and I don;t think the theory holds any water.

You can just make out the blue/white shield/script that was Buick's logo then, on the hubcaps.