Sixty8panther

I'm speechless...

Right? Were it not for the 1932 Cadillac V16 in a secret warehouse in Maynard, this guy would put "Cadillac Bill" to shame. Still $1.5 million is too much, this guy is another "Barrett Jackson dreamer" WTF is going to have that kind of time... I'm all set listing 50,000 items on ebay and dealing wiht about 459,273 potential customer emails.

Eh, eitehr way I know what you meant. The thing is to me it seems like there's MORE police issued Tahoes/Expeditions down south then here in the north-east , lbs/per/lbs. All the listed advantages, esp. a rugged BOF chassis & high GVWR I understand, it's just that for every one Tahoe I see up here in Mass/NH there seem to be at least THREE in some southern state like Arizona or Forida. Then again this observation is limited to my experience traveling, I wish I had the time and money to travel more. BTW: Vegas, Phoenix & Petersburg FL is where I have noticed this phonomenon. Other than that I watch Cops once in a while and many of the cases where there is a Tahoe involved there is no clear advantage for the SUV except for sheer mass in the bump-manouver. In many cases they would be better off in a C.V.

That is a wicked funny movie!

First off, my bad on overlooking the (205/N.A.) 3800 comment. My bad. B.V.8891: That's definitely subjective. While not automotive related, Honda has their robotics , not to mention their engine technology and racing applications (regardless of your opinion of that). I will answer this in very simple terms: 1932 SJ Duesenbergs: the original "HIGH REV TUNERS" - DOHC (32 valve inline - Supercharged - Outstanding horsepower/weight & horsepower/liter ratio The Cord L29 and 810 Coffin Nose. FWD is NOTHING new, be it good or bad it was successfully implemented into production cars in 1929 with the L29. 1934 Chrysler/DeSoto/Dodge/Plymouth AIRFLOW Not only is irt more aerodymanic than some modern cars but it introduced the masses to UNIBODY construction. ------ I could go on and on.... 90% of Automotive innovation was done in the 1900-1942 period & it just so happens that most of these innovations went unoticed untill a lot later when some other post-war vehicle claimed the benefits of a particular recycled technology or invention. Balthazar, JamesB & Fly can tell you much more than I, I like to do the trivia and all but I'm not the foremost expert in this stuff... there's a lot of 411 out there about the amazing pre-war era. XP also has an amazing knowledge of pre-war cars, esp. Brass era to 1930s cars.

Awsome acccomplishment on the 230K! No offense but I would never pay $1000 for a car with 250K. Esp. when I bought a MINT 1986 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham with 172K for $600.

Ahhh-sum! We'll be seeing you on COPS buddy! (Stupid Question: why is it that the less snowfall a state gets the MORE likely it is that they operate Tahoes in their Fleet? WTF is up wiht States like FL, TX, CA & NC and their need for an SUV cruiser?)

$1000 is like $600 too much in these parts. I've been looking at gorgeous used cars with less than half that milage for $1500 or so and they're a bit "higher" end cars. I'd ratehr have a 1970s car with 100,000 miles versus a slightly more "MODERN" 1990s car with almost 200,000. Plus if & when a repair is needed for some 1982 Cutlass or 1979 Citation it will cost about 40% of what a 1990s car would cost to repair all else being equal. Just my :twocents:

DIBS!!! I just want these five. 20 Camaros? Well buddy it depends are 17 of them 1969s or are 14 of them 1978s? Should have listed some more specifics... probably mostly 2nd gen stuff. I also love how the ONLY car newer than mid-1970s that is listed is a 1994 Roadmaster.

Another reason why I feel safer in my 1964 Super 88 than in some "modern" CRV or Explorer. That damn car is SOOOOO wide & low to the ground I think it would take a 90* turn at 120mph to roll it over. even then it would probably just rip the bias ply tires off the rims & make a lot of sparks but stay shiny side up in the end.

If that sort of "progress" had persisted then we'd all be driving these today:

.....anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm at work so I dont' have the luxury or the time for spell check adn long posts, but here is a Ford timeline to make it fair, if anyone's 1970s cars should be ridiculed it's FoMoCo's

Likewise... even though I grew up in Eastern Europe where at age 6 I was identifying Skodas, Tatras, Renaults, Ladas, BMWs, Volgas, Mercedes Benzes, Trabants, Simcas, Fiats, Peugeots, Wartburgs, Renaults.... well you get the point. Then at 8 years old we moved to Boston & I discovered that BMWs and Porsches were NOT the coolest cars ever, GM cars from the 1950s and 1960s were! But now I'm of the oppinion that it was all downhill after the late 1930s. As awsome as the 1950s and 1960s cars are, the 1930s stuff is by far the most well built and rightfully so, most highly respected. Cars like Cadillacs, Auburns, Packards and of course Duesenbergs of the 1930s did more innovation in that one decade than Toyota, Honda, Nissan & mazda have done collectively in their entire length of existance. I'm dead serious about that. They were over-enginered, styled as rolling works of art (and in many cases hand built one offs) they were built on frames stronger and more impressive than most of today's 1-ton trucks and the attention to detail will NEVER be touched nevermind surpassed, the only cars that even come close are super-high-end exotics like VW/AUDI's $1.5 million Bugatti W16 Veyron. I understand the point you're trying to make and it is a valid one, horsepower numbers went up a LOT from 1979 to 1995. The way you are going abotu proving your point is IMHO retarded.... First rule of comparing power outputs is you never compare a mix of natrually aspirated versus SC/turbo. Your V8 is carburated and lacks a supercharger... The 95 Riviera is not only boosted by a roots type blower but it has multi-port EFI. Why don't we instead compare a turbocharged flat-6 out of a 1979 Porsche to a Ford 3.8 liter V6 out of a 1995 Ford Taurus. The STS was the girlfriend's DREAM car, I bought it off the dealership for $7900 about 12 minutes after I traded it in from a guy who bought a 2001 Silverado off of me. it was a mistake but you live and learn. Cadillac is still my favorite brand of all time. I think the 1931 Pinninfarina-bodied V16 boat-tail roadster is the coolest car of all time! (IMHO even cooler than Duesenbergs, though it IS close) Dude, ask XP how much trouble I had in my 2800lbs. Maxima in the snow last winter. I've had several RWD "winter beaters" over the years and the Datsun does as well as any other lightweight RWD car with IRS & decent tires, which is to say GREAT as long as you know how to drive in those conditions. XP or any of my other buddies will be happy to tell you how well I drive my RWd $h! in the snow. I can even powerslide around a snow covered offramp wiht the best of them, but if you just want to get from point-a-to-B in a bad blizzard it's all about restraint with the gas pedal & large doses of common sense mixed with healthy amounts of caution. I never got stuck in the Datsun, anywhere. Ever. Of course after driving a 377 horsepower 1968 Camaro with bald 12" wide rear tires through 40 miles of snow covered N.E. roads blizzard back in 2003 it takes a LOT to impress me. On that same ride, while my (Corvette ZR-1 wide) drag radials were making that crunching sound in the fresh snow as I was doing 35mph on the highway I saw two funny things, a 4x4 Ranger and a S-10 Blazer 4x4 that were stuck in snow banks off of Rt.495. I used common sense and got home even though my pregnant girlfriend was sweating bullets thinking I was either dead or dying in a snow bank somewhere. The car never saw more than 40pmh that night even though the speed limit was 65mph 50% of the way home and the tach never showed more than 1500 rpm except for durring my victory donut in the supermarkt parking lot in front of house while a plow truck with yellow beacons pushed piles of snow larger than most VWs. After that experience I have NO sympathy for anyone who can not drive RWD in the winter. to me it just means you're too cheap to get snow tires and or you're a pu$$y. I did the mathematically impossible in a musclecar but some yuppie douchebag can not get through a light snowfall in a BMW 5-series of 2wd F-150? Teh problem is the "loose nut behind the wheel" not the RWD vehicle in question. have I gotten stuck before? SURE! Probably about a dozen times in the last 10 years... maybe more. Has it ever been the vehicle's fault? FU*K NO! First time I got stuck in the snow was in my FWD Sunbird cause I drove, like a moron, into a parking lot covered with 18" of snow. i thought it was not "that deep". And since then I've pulled my share of stupidity. You live and learn. If you drive a RWD car with bald tires in a very low traction situation and you have no sand with you you need to suck it up and admit you goofed. You don't blame it on RWD and go trade in your F-body for an Accord... not if you have a spine. Do NOT blame stupidity on RWD. RWD cars do not get stuck in the snow... STUPID PEOPLE in RWD CARS get stuick in the snow! There's not too many Quadrasteer Silverados on the road either but that does nto mean those trucks are not great vehicles or that they're not better than the crap that sells like hotcakes. Ummm... you might be taking this T.W.C.C. thing a bit too serious, you know it's kind of tongue in cheek right? I mean your Riviera is a very cool car and your Delta 88 even more so but there's some not-very-cool cars in Tight Whips too, we do NOT discriminate based on our personal tastes. One of these days if WMJ buys a Yugo or if some other nut on C&G buys a Hyundai Pony we'll still make him a sig & include him/her in our car club.

I'm sure whatever spoilers is has are functional.

Sure... maybe we can make a gangsta' flick to funf dour TIGHT WHIPS extracuricular activities. The only way it would work would be if the quality and cinemantography was about the quality of the Zapruda film but at a much more archane level & with more grainy film... in B&W and those little fuzzy lint thingies & dirt would be whizzing by the lens like in a WWII combat documentary. I'm not sure how many of you ever flip open a "Sport Compact CAr" magazine nevermind subscribe but this they had a pretty funny article about a year ago or so... They took a (2005?) Nissan SE-R and disassembled it to the bare bones unibody & then went further to the point of cutting down the car to just a floorboard structure, engine, trans, motor, radiator support, driver's seat & controls and four whels... there was NOTHING left that was not absolutely essential to the car's ability to pull itself down the road... by ther end it did like a 12 sec. 1/4 mile or something crazy stupid like that since it only weighed IIRC about 1300 lbs. That would be funny to do with the STS.

The battery (in 1997 but not some other years) is under a structural member (shaped like triangle) that bolts to the fender & radiator support, it's recessed inside the fender and there is NOT enough room to drop it down or pull it out withough cutting & bruising yourself up pretty bad or using some elaborate coathanger trick like I have. It's 0.01 inches away from the fender, serpentine belt, headlight, coolant overflow and abotu a dozen other things. Also the positive terminal is in a great spot for those piromaniacs who like to hurt or kill themselves by electrocution when your wrench &/or hand touches the terminal and fender/brace/radiator support at the same time... good times. Just one example: (I'm at work, no time for novels) Blower motor meltdown due to a defectiove heat shield... the inboard valvecover is about 0.75 inches away from the heater core & blower motor so not only was this the cause of the problerm to begin with that kind of clearance the whole motor, trans & cradle asssembly have to be dropped. If you only had an idea of how disgustingly expensive that was you'd be pissed too. $480 after my employe discount at the dealership and I was a friend of the mechanic who did it. BTW: If nothing else I know an engine mount has to be taken appart on a G-body Riviera to do the serpentine belt FYI. PETARDED! Yeah well the front struts have been junk since about 120K miles. When i say junk I mean they feel like they're chained down insead of bolted to the substructure of the unibdy. The jiggle and bounce with all the limp precision of hellen keller in an olympic ice skating competition. How much are they you ask???? $500 a corner. So to get a new compressor and replace the two front struts and rear air shocks it's like $2300 plus labor. Thanks to a friendly C&G member who recomended Arnott I got mine for $650 but have yet to buy the pump and install them.... the windshield breaking while the car was off the road & uninsured at an asshole buddies house was the last straw for me. We bought the Q45 and the STS just sits.... it's the red headed stepchild of the fleet and will soon be parted out... I think I'll save and rebuild the No* for some scummy 1920s T-bucket Rat Rod I'll pull out of a Geogria swamp and drive cross country with the coil packs still on the passanger side valvecover but the motor facing NO--->SO.

Again this is just my oppinion so take it for waht it's worth: If you're OCD about cleaning your car and keep it immaculite but have no awareness of what whels propell you down the road and do only the very basic maintenance then you are NOT a real "car guy". Car guys roll up their sleeves and get in there they tinker, they change oil and do tune ups, when their transmission breaks do to drag racing they suck it up & install a new one. People who make a big deal out of changing an air filter and carry little beyond a phillips screwdriver with them in their trunk but polish/wash/detail their car everyday are nothing but car owners who are OCD... not CAR ETHUSIASTS. A car's drive wheels and orientation of its motor and how this affects handeling dynamics etc. are far more relevant than how much dirt is on your quarter panel. If you are not AWARE & do not care which wheels are doing what then your Aurora is nothing more than a d!ck extension. My appologies in advance...

Nice clean lines... even if very unoriginal.

Repairs have been VERY expensive 95% of the time. Why? Not bacause it's a Cadillac but becasue the damn engine & craddle have to be dropped down to service anything on that car. it's a giant mess of trans. suspension, shorty-headers, giant valvecover & plastic junk sandwitched between the firewall & radiator support. Even replacing the battery is a major pain in the arse. DOHC V8 + transverse mounted engine orientation = clusterfu*k! I've had about a dozen major repairs that came up in that car in the past four years, with the exception of one, the stupid air ride suspension which $h! the bed at 135K, every one of my repairs can be contributed directly or indirectly to the motor that's mounted flippin' sideways. Most of these repairs were about twice as much money as they would have been if the motor was the "correct" way. :AH-HA_wink: Maybe it's just dumb luck but the closer to the 1950s my cars have been the more solid and well built they are basic maintenance is a pleasant, rewarding experience instead of a major headache & chore that leaves you with a migrane, bleeding knuckles & leads to a dead end that seems to always involve expensive parts and a dealer visit. Let's compare two of my Cadillacs: 1986 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (RWD BOF) and my 1997 Cadillac STS (Unibody FWD) _________________________1986 _____________________ 1997 _________________________$600______________________$7900 milage when bought: _______ 172,000 _________________101,000 Milage when sold/now: ______187,000 _________________ 145,000 Repairs $$$________________$350 _____________________$3000 Ownership experience: ________A- _______________________ D+ The only reason the STS does not get a fat F is because the Northstar motor still pulls like a big block chevy at WOT... the only reason why the F.B. gets an A minus versus plus is because the Olds 307 it was powered by is about as powerful as a Ecotec 2.4 ...litterally. Although once it was roilling that car would surprise you. I did tripple digits in it all the time and the torque going uphill was always adequate even with 4 people in the car and 300 lbs. of tools/crap in the trunk.

Repairs have been VERY expensive 95% of the time. Why? Not bacause it's a Cadillac but becasue the damn engine & craddle have to be dropped down to service anything on that car. it's a giant mess of trans. suspension, shorty-headers, giant valvecover & plastic junk sandwitched between the firewall & radiator support. Even replacing the battery is a major pain in the arse. DOHC V8 + transverse mounted engine orientation = clusterfu*k! I've had about a dozen major repairs that came up in that car in the past four years, with the exception of one, the stupid air ride suspension which $h! the bed at 135K, every one of my repairs can be contributed directly or indirectly to the motor that's mounted flippin' sideways. Most of these repairs were about twice as much money as they would have been if the motor was the "correct" way. :AH-HA_wink: Maybe it's just dumb luck but the closer to the 1950s my cars have been the more solid and well built they are basic maintenance is a pleasant, rewarding experience instead of a major headache & chore that leaves you with a migrane, bleeding knuckles & leads to a dead end that seems to always involve expensive parts and a dealer visit.

Fly: While I understand many of your point regarding my subjectivity let's just agree to disagree on most fo this stuff... we both know how we feel in the end. Guess what though? If maybe you did nto have a FWD sedan offering from GM for years & years while RWD was sold in millions with somelame excuse for why FWD does not sell while 70% of Automotive many facturers were churning out several or in some cases nothing BUT, you'd be bitter too. GM used to offer something for everyone and soon it seems they will again but I will never except the theory that the W-/H-/C-/K-/G body cars of the 80s and 90s made for a well rounded and balanced lineup of cars, esp. for the world's largest automotive manufacturer. It's pathetic and GM should be ashamed for letting themselves sink to the levels they were at a few years ago. The "cookie executives" and beancounters did more damage in those few years than can be repaired in my lifetime. Please tell me you're being sarcastic.... please! First off WTF should I be given the choice of unibody car or a pig of an SUV? What there's no room for middle ground? Second the Expedition & Navigator have by far the worst handeling dynamics of any truck I have ever driven, including commercial stuff. I think most Box- trucks corner better and with a more solid feel. When I worked as a Chevrolet salesman nothing pissed me off more than having to drive a 1st gen. Expedition or Navigator... I hated those things with a psssion. Comparing a 1997 expedition to a 1997 Suburban is like comparing a 1979 Checker Marathon to a 1996 Impala SS. If you're telling me that instead of asking for a modern day B-dody from GM people should have bought SUVs then I'm speechless. As great as the Suburban & Escalade are even those do not IMHO offer a good substitute for a BOF cars in the sense of a modern day Fleetwood Brougham.

I knew that...

I don;t like skinny chicks and I really don't like superficial & snobby chicks! Curves are where it's at! You are more "Merto" than most gay guys I know. Going on about skin tones and such....

Can I get an AMEN!? The Compass is the lamest Jeep ever! A FWD unibody Jeep? Gimmie a fuc*ing break!

Then it is probably some Lexus concept pre-dating the GS.