SAmadei

They did... but it was part of the GM' modus operandi. Its not like the '91-'96 wagon bodies were perceived to be any less distinct division to division than the '77-'90 wagon bodies. Some of the '77-'90 bodies had different sheetmetal, but it was so subtle, it takes a B-bod aficionado to tell whats different about them.

Its notable in its scarcity. As far as wagons go, all three wagons are pretty much alike. At least the Olds had the Vista roof... though the Buick later had it as well.

Hmm... Amazing that someone would do this to a perfectly good, 4 year old car. I figured they started off with something that had a terminal problem. Interesting pictures... too bad they are too small to tell exactly whats going on... and the shop's website is terribly short on detail. _IF_ I was paying big bucks for something like this, I'd want to have a detailed idea of what they were doing. While they kept the gauges working, its obvious that this is no longer computer controlled or emissions legal. I can't help but wonder if a cleaner conversion could have been done, with less of the body being chopped up.

Oh dear... that's going to get you crucified by the 60 degree guys. ;-) But I know what you're saying... and its why I like the 3800's. I wouldn't worry about that. IIRC (I don't have the '99 GP owners manual around), there is a separate fuse for the fog lamps... its in the fuse box under the hood.. but I don't see any reason that would be a problem... its a simple circuit. While fixing the '99 GP, I also had both fog lamps out... and suspected the same thing... it just turned out to be two burnt out bulbs. Actually, it was one burnt out bulb and one missing bulb. Replaced them and no problem. Since people feel they need to drive around with their fog lamps on ALL the time, it don't surprise me that they burn out. I wish all manufacturers set the fog lamps to work like on the '04 GP... you have to flick them on EVERYTIME you start the car. I imagine that got jeers from the public, though.

Well, we had that... in the days of carbs, at least. A gasoline powered engine can easily be set up to run on propane, natural gas, ethanol or even woodgas in a time of emergency. Unfortunately, if your car is fuel injected, I'm sure you have a much harder time outfitting it, as you need to fight the computer the whole way.

I like the B-59s. I just wish the front turn signals didn't look like afterthoughts. A '59 with a '60 bumper would look sweet, IMHO. LOL, I was going to mention the same thing.

We're at the hold of supply and demand, not an oil cartel. We get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico, not OPEC. And even most of our OPEC oil comes from South America, not the middle east. We can buy all our oil from Canada or Mexico... but then we pay more. But the problem with supply and demand means that if OPEC ups the price... demand goes up for non-OPEC sources and those prices go up.... including the oil that comes from home. So even if we don't us ONE DROP of OPEC oil or imported oil... they still have an effect on price. And always will... until they have no oil left to sell. So, I consider Oil Dependence to be pretty close to a myth. Personally, I feel oil is a dirty industry overall... and I'd rather see us leave as much of the byproduct pollution in other countries as possible. I would also like it to be a case where we use our oil last... thats why we have a reserve... for national security. If oil dependence is such a security issue... what is Europe going to do? Most of the big European countries import nearly all of their oil. If that is cut off... well, we know they aren't just going to crumble. They have some other sources of energy... but they will just cope. Just like we would if all of our oil supplies were yanked. The trouble here is that we have three problems fighting it out here. People want to end this supposed oil dependence... while not drilling in ANWR (or the Gulf of Mexico now)... by using technology that will not be feasible for years, if not decades. Well, I guess all this smokescreens the real problems of this country... a bunch of greedy dolts robbing the bank while our economy burns.

Very cool. Even though its probably junkyard-bound... I still am kinda fond of the '83 Celebrity coupe. Never cared for the dash design. Looks too much like giant Viewmaster.

Yeah, I want to know the same. Hopefully, Car Craft or someone will do a feature on this sleeper. Knowing what most FWD cars look like underneath, I'm convinced that you could make a bolt-in RWD conversion for any large FWD car. Or nearly bolt-in. If Roush could do it for the Focus, DTS should be easy. Not sure I care for the BB 572 approach. Its just too easy to get power from a LSx nowadays. That would have fit under the hood... and completed the sleeper look. If anyone has any links to the construction of this beast, I'd like to see them. My Bonne still needs a tranny... maybe it needs the engine turned 90 degrees, as well. ;-)

'59 awesome... '61 awesome. '60... awful... WTF? I suppose '60 is not a bad car for its time, its just very un-Pontiac. There used to be a decent powder blue and white (I think) '60 hardtop that used to crop up for sale from time to time... not in bad shape... but it just is not a design I am too fond of.

Not necessarily... could just be fuel tank design. Unless VW is doing something radical, about the only thing the fuel gauge and fuel pump would share is ground and possibly a pigtail connector. Quite frankly, in-tank fuel pumps tend to just go. You might luck out and find the fuel pressure is not up to spec... but all my fuel pumps died without warning. Of course, the fuel pump uses the fuel as its coolant... so running a car on fumes all the time WILL reduce its life.

It looks like 'View New Content' (VNC) is working somewhat better. However, I'm having an odd glitch. Using 3.6.9 Firefox, occasionally, when I hit the back button, its going back twice. I know is sounds like my setup, but I'm not convinced, as this is not happening with other sites... or here before the upgrade... and my Firefox setup has been pretty stable. Usually, I can then just hit the forward button to put me back at VNC. But sometimes, that intermediate stop disappears. Example: Hit VNC. Read thread A Hit back button... goes to VNC page correctly. Read thread B Hit back button... go to some article I read last week from my CnG browsing history. Hit forward button... back at VNC page. Read thread C Hit back button... back at that same article I read last week again. Hit forward button... back in thread C. Hit 'VNC' and continue reading threads D and onward. I guess this is happening about 2 times a day. Very strange.

Every car I've ever had, running out of gas was a one shot deal. No sputter, just out.

I don't see where CAFE has done anything except create red tape and make it hard for new companies to enter the US marketplace. ALL of the technology that drove fuel efficiency came about by competition, not CAFE. How effective is CAFE? Well, there are some cars 40 years old that can meet 2009 CAFE of 27.5mpg. If anything, I think CAFE made things worse... by scaring the automakers into downsizing the larger cars and underpowering them, people fled to trucks and the SUV market was invented. The law of unintentional consequences chased people out of cars which could have been made more efficient and into trucks that eat more gas. Granted, competition still kept trucks in the same ballpark... but if you wanted ultimate power, it was easy to do an end around of CAFE by raising the GVWR. Lutz sums it up right... "it was like trying to fight obesity by requiring tailors to make only small-sized clothes." You know in the end, it'll likely be a kick in the head if someone figures out a easy way to create synthetic gasoline by sequestering CO/CO2.

LOL. Reading my mind. Signs are so reflective today and headlights (yours and oncoming) are so blindingly bright that you can't see anything unreflective (like pedestrians, animals and debris) in the relatively dim street are impossible to see over the glare of the blindly bright signs and cars. I only see this trend getting worse.

I can't imagine PAYING for MS Office to have a font. Viva LibreOffice!

Looks like some people are happy to jump the gun. Its easier for a low selling brand to post big (58%!) number than a higher selling brand. I don't have the raw YTD for Buick or Pontiac for the past few years... but IIRC, Buick YTD is 58% over a 2009 sales of ~100K cars. Thats 58K cars. Pontiac alone was selling around 200-300K cars. Anyone who thinks selling 1/6th the number of cars is good business needs to stay out of business... and dont' use the argument that Buick was selling at a higher profit. We've learned since that GM had no idea how much cash on hand they had and had no idea where money was coming and going. So GM was fumbling in the dark as to where any profit might be hiding. The figures are more telling are that "with four less brands!" GM is ONLY up 10% this month, whereas the rest of the industry is up considerably more... including Ford at 46% (If I read the other thread right). The problems at Buick-GMC dealers still stand. Buick may be the hottest brand, but its struggling to get back to its old sales numbers. They have no entry level cars to sell, so don't show up at Buick-GMC with less than $27K in your pocket, so there are no relationships being built to slowly move people into a Buick as their buying power increases. I'm not knocking the Regal or LaCrosse, but lets revisit this in 5-10-15 years after GM runs out of Daewoos and Opels to rebadge and the Lexus owners Buick steals are too old to drive. Mitsubishi only has to sell about 1500 more cars a month to run away with Buick's "hottest/fastest brand" title. Panoz... only 15.

The people of NJ appreciate your efforts to have one less tourist on the roads that we will have to swerve around. Have you priced Acela yet? Its fairly expensive. The old Metroliner and Northeast Regional are cheaper and almost as fast if you are coming into NYC from the south. Its a shame the Metroliner was discontinued... it was only ~15-25 minutes slower than the Acela from DC to NYC, but a lot cheaper, IIRC. I think the Acela sells out, too, so you have to get your tickets ahead of time.

Time to switch all the signs to the WingDings font.

In 2010, I guess. Funny... never had a leg room problem in my "downsized" '81 Bonneville coupe. In fact, growing up, we never had a 4 door... always 2 doors. I spent plenty of years in various rear seat coupes without a problems. Of course, today, we've shrunk the trunk, shrunk the hood... stretched the wheelbase... made cars taller... brag about how new cars are so much more space efficient... yet there is less room in the back of many sedans than there was in coupes of yesteryear. I fit in the back of a '69 F-body (granted, barely... and I'm not sure my worn out back would let me do it nowadays)... but can't even think of getting in the back of a '10 Camaro. I tried to get in the back of a GTO, and it was a disaster. Both cars are bigger in all dimensions that a '69 F-body. WTH? The solution to a skimpy CTS Coupe backseat is a proper, modern ETC based on the STS. But we know... notgoingtohappen.com. Sure there is some rear seat room in that Coupe DeVille Balthy posted...

Thats standard in 1996s only, IIRC... makes the '96s especially desirable. '94s and '95s have only a console.

Wow. I think the only vehicle newer than 1981 I've driven in the last 20 years without cruise control is the '89 Chevy work van. The '88 Safari has cruise, but it didn't function right due to the 403 engine swap... unless "functioning right" means "Wide Open Throttle". I find it surprising any car with a drive by wire would NOT have cruise control... especially one that is a supposedly "premium compact" car... but GM has already worked against the "premium compact" idea by putting drum brakes on it. I don't feel I need cruise control, rear disc brakes or any of the other extraneous crap... but it seems to me that with the general public brainwashed into thinking these are required items, I would think GM would see fit to make them standard in a car being marketed as this one is.

Well, outside NYC you might have a point. In NYC, the buildings/tunnels/elevateds play hell with GPS... and some of the intersections are so close together, I don't think GPS will reliably be able to tell one from another. At least using the Google maps with either of my phones, or the GPS in taxis, I see my position change by hundreds of feet while sitting still. Of course, electronic street signs for your car could be implemented so easily with a low powered radio installed at major intersections. Considering that electric would be already present due to the traffic light, it could nearly as cheap as replacing one of those $110 signs.

Probably 5% of those street signs are unnecessary. NYC has this strange habit of signing "streets" which aren't there... or are not actually intersections. I can't count how often I'll be parking and there will be a street sign for a street in the middle of the block... which is nowhere to be found. I wish I could post an online example, but I can't find one. Of course, I don't care for the new font... NYC uses fairly small street signs in most areas... so I find the all caps easier to read. Also, there is such sign overload at EVERY intersection, that many times you can't read everything anyway... between scaffolding, trees and damaged signs, you many times can't see them... especially when you are doing 50 mph in a sea of taxicabs weaving back and forth, going through a "intersection" every 7 seconds.

Manual tranny doesn't preclude cruise control. Sister's '91 Firebird has cruise control with a stick.