balthazar

Is the entire backing on the center stack also brushed aluminum- because that looks exactly like black plastic also. Or is it just awful photography making it look cheap? Was looking at printed pics of this car's interior today, and the tumescent, overly-emphasized stitching has to go. Otherwise it looks very inviting in pics. Not that dick again...

This Duesenberg proposal was circa 1980. It used a stretched deVille frame (going from 121" wheelbase to 133"), and used the '77-79 Cadillac 425 V-8. Twin turbocharging was a planned option. It was supposed to cost about $100K but as far as I have been able to discern, only the one prototype was ever built. The company was lead by 2 nephews of Fred & August Duesenberg.

Quite the fan club in here! Don't sign me up, tho. Overall the vantage looks pretty good, tho there are a number of small details inconsistant & frankly: pedestrian relative to the car's price. Here's one: the pig costs $110,000, has really beautifully-grained wood that's not buried in a half-inch of snotty plastic for a change, yet still uses air vents made of molded black plastic! No F-ing way at $110 grand! My neighbor has a DB7 that I looked over (and under) real well recently, and the car is pure junk and laughable in design & engineering at $25K, nevermind the $70-someK it cost new. I would vehemently hope, for A-M's sake, that the Vantage/Vanquish are world's better (overall they look to be via the pics)...

Currently own 2 Pontiacs, 2 Fords and 1 Buick. Would like to add another Ford to the stable, but otherwise am quite happy with my 'iron harem'.

Any gap due to photography angle (quite minor here) would be located at the farthest point from the viewer's eye since the gauge face is mounted below the circular edge of the housing. In this pic, such would be centered where the "150" marking is (look at the dimensionality of black hub of the needle), but that isn't the case here. The only other option is shoddy assembly work. Regardless, if viewing the gauge from anything other than dead straight on is likely (as in the case of a gauge in a car), at least add another 1/8" inch of gauge face so a big black gap isn't blatantly obvious. It looks like sh!t.

More RPMS equals more emissions. The faster an engine turns the more exhaust it expells. Not more per combustion cycle, just more combustion cycles, period.

Chinese-produced steel has a longstanding & well-earned reputation for being marginally better than compressed tin foil.

^^ Wow, and 'us GM fans' are in foolish half-witted denial...

lexus buyers look for signs of crappy assembly quality??? And how is pointing out design deficiencies "mocking"? It's a gap, BTW, and a huge one, right in a close-up factory publicity shot. Oops.

Let's try this from another angle. If I have 2 identical 3500 lb sedans with a 200 HP V-6, but the 1st develops it's peak HP & torque at 2000 RPMs less than the 2nd. In order to experience the same perceived level of 'performance' in everyday driving, the 2nd car must be accelerated 2000 RPMs higher to reach the same power figures (this is a given). Both cars feature identical combustion efficiencies due to design & electronic controls and both burn the same amount of fuel at a given HP. However, due to that HP/TRQ being set higher in the RPM range, the 2nd car has to emit the same degree of emissions more often due to increased RPMs. This means a greater quantity of emissions from the 2nd car. Given these parameters, how can any other conclusion be valid? Please someone direct me to specific EPA test procedures; I surely would like to see direct hard data (as opposed to mathmatical conversions) of the quantity of emissions over time between a high RPM motor & a low RPM motor.

Gotta luv 'em!

Everything I've ever held in my hand marked "China" has been pure, unmitigated crap... why in the world would I gamble on something as complex as a car 'Made in China'?? Show me 50 years of excellent-quality product and they may have a fighting chance.

>>"such an engine would not emit less emissions"<< Maybe I'm not making my point well, empowah. If a mid-sized car makes 200 HP at 6500 RPM, it will require a certain level of throttle (& therefore RPMs) to deliver the desired level of acceleration in normal driving... ie- more RPMs to develop the required power. If that very same car developed 200 HP at 4500 RPM, that exact same desired level of acceleration would be met using 2000 less RPMs... and 2000 RPMs less of emissions. Every other revolution per minute of the engine produces 1 exhaust pulse per cylinder. If Car X averages --say-- 3500 RPMs during acceleration, the quantity of emissions is less than one averaging --say-- 4500. And if the EPA calculates MPG based on a conversion of CO2 emissions, that agency is even more useless than I thought.

Wow, something new for me. Never heard of it before this. Wild. I wonder how the hell they got it to weigh 5400 lbs?? Concrete fenders? And 130 MPH?? Sounds optomistic on only 192 HP- it took Chrysler 300 to hit 140. "LeSabreski" -- is that the actual name??

Yes, but this is a 1975 proposal, not an FWD '80s X-body. X-bodies from the mid '70s routinely ran 350s of their respective divisions.

>>"The EPA doesn't test at specific RPMs..."<< I was referring to readily available data via state inspection stations; the EPA/manufacturer emissions data is not released publically as far as I know (beyond classifications: LEV, SLEV, etc). >>"...certainly there are engines that make most of their power at higher RPMs AND get excellent fuel economy."<< The questions remain: would said engines get equal fuel economy if their power was developed at lower RPMs AND also emit less emissions? Is/ how is high RPMs related to fuel economy and emissions? Are these engines getting "excellent fuel economy" at 80% of redline, or during relatively steady-speed EPA tests? What are individual engine's emission volumes?

There certainly was a flurry of custom activity around Cadillac in the late '70s- perhaps not equalled in volume since the '30s, yet I have never seen a single 2-dr Seville conversion (pickup, Opera Coupe or convert). The Seville 2-seat convertibles (no sidemounts) are sweet. The slantback Sevilles abandonment of the sweepspear is puzzling- that simple molding really ties the design together. The 'Eldocamino is downright awful; nothing degrades a Cadillac quicker than an outright Chevy rear. {shudder}

No; I agree with you: the faster a given engine spins, the more combustion cycles per minute (RPMs) and thusly more emissions. I did ask if anyone could disprove this... so far: nada. The problem with emission testing with regards to this thread is that it is usually performed at moderate & steady RPMs. This is the only hard data available yet does not reflect how a high-revving auto is often driven. I am not aware of any testing to measure the cumulative volume of motor vehicle exhaust, but I'm sure it would be interesting.

By saying the exterior 'counts', they are in no way 'admitting' any sort of problem. Something can count whether it is well done or not.

Holy effing crap; I was going to say it looks like a very rough test mule for the '52 LeSabre. BTW: '3 car lengths' (in this era especially) would be about 54' long; no way is this that lengthy. I still do not know this on. Far too homemade to be a Packard, tho it sure looks like it's wearing Packard caps in that one shot.

Charcoal canisters fall under emission controls, of course, and thusly I believe they came into widespread being in the mid '70s: my '73 440 Charger didn't have one but my '78 225 Volare did.

Well, they already have the E-class... then the S-class. (of course the coupes, sports cars and SUVs are on their own naming schemes (CLK, CLS, CL; SLK, SL; MLK, ML) Hooboy- mercedes board meetings must be great fun, what with all the employees constantly questioning each other about what alpha-numeric is which car. Hope they have a huge labeled wall of their product line in the conference room. Easily the most horrible family of names going. WHat the hell is this new Milk truck?

I think the next WRX should be on the Epsilon II platform.

hm-mmm..... this one.... is..... new to me. Congrats, Harley!

This whole thing comes off as an automotive urban legend. I assumed it was the gas tank, because a non-running vintage engine cannot be giving off even 1/10th the required "emissions" to kill humans in a closed garage.