Sixty8panther

Okay.... NOW you can have your point.

Bugatti EB218 or EB118... either way it can be seen in this photo in the top left.

Last tiome I checked a loaded up SC Riviera was near $40,000 by the time it was cencelled in 1999. In any case if they had sold any better than the B-body then Oldsmobile & the Riviera would stil be around. Anyway XP's 1996 Riviera with a non-SC 3800 listed for like $33,000 WITHOUT a sunroof & CD changer. As far as the H-/C-/K-/G body's being a step up from the W-body? Sure they were, but it's still lipstick on a pig. No enthusiast is going to buy a FWD Bonneville SSEi or when there was a RWD Lincoln LS to be had, and if someobe wanted true luxury in 1997,I mean a TRUE big, bold ruged but still sensible comfotrable luxury car they bought a Town Car not a FWD Deville. More and more I'm turned off by FWD Northstars. You want my 1997 STS withn 145K miles? You can have it for $1500 since that's about 700 more than it's worth at an auction. Very sad for a car that was worth $49,000 new 10 years ago. Crappy styling sucks, weather bland or just misguided, and FWD stinks too. Yeah... all you guys will be hapy when you're driving your government issued Camry Hybrids. :wink: DF79: You're comparing the horsepower in your 79 to your 95 as if it was an apples-to-apples comparison? Well, how abotu we compare a 1979 FWD hatchback (Citation) to a 1995 Chevy hatchback (Camaro) I think the 1979 has like 130 and the 1995 has either 200 or 275 depending on the model. If you want to compare your 1995 Riviera to a B-body the DO IT. They still made a RWE B-body roadmaster then, even XP who LOVES G-body Rivieras will tell you that a 95 Roadmaster will kick a 95 Riviera's ass in the power department. Lets get real. The Roadmaster was a Impala SS with a tuxedo on. It had a detunned Vette motor for all intents and purposes. 1995 Buick Roadmaster Limited 0-60mph: 6.7 1/4 mile: 15.0 1995 Buick Riviera 0-60mph: 7.8 1/4 mile: 15.9 Now as far as unibody.... let's see how well the DTS-L does against the Town Car Executive-L in the real world, not just sales wise but in terms of durrability. I have friend who despises Cadillac onlyl for the fact that he worked for a limousine manufacturer in the 1980s and they made unibody Cadillac stretch limos along side RWD BOF-cars like Lincoln Town Cars. His opinion of 1980s FWD unibody Cadillacs is even far lower than mine. This is a person in his late 40s who has TEN times life experience in all different levels of the car industry than I have had in my 27 years on this planet. Unibody is and always will ba a compromise in the sake of $aving money and weight. Perhaps it's a neccesssary evil in some cars btu not ALL. The GMT-900 frames seem to be pretty damn modern to me, why that same exact tehnology can not be used under a modern B-body is beyond me...? A 100% updated BOF, RWD Fleetwood Brougham, Caprice & Roadmaster would be a beautiful thing if built using today's suspension, interior, safety cage construction, DOD V8 engines and all other modern uddates but with a 21st century truck style frame under it. Now THAT would be smart technology!

Good luck with it!

Not quite Einstein... it's not 1986 you know. The Corvette Z06 gets better fuel economy with a huge 7 liter V8 than most midsize cars got a couple decades ago. I'm not sure if you've noticed btu GM is not building 1979 Suburbans anymore with big carburation and 1960s technology. Considering the variety, performance and size of GM's vehicles their fuel economy numbers are much better than HONDAsor TOYOTAs. I'd love to compare the Seqoia to the some simillar product, like a Trailblazer EXT or Tahoe. Since the Ridgeline has no frame or any amount of durablle construction it probably does alright but the tradeoff of such a $h!ty vehicle is NOT worth it.

Note to self: install Cadillac 500 V8 into Datsun ASAP. I think we need to speed up global warming and my little 2.4 liter I6 is not doing enough. An 8.2 liter V8 will do quite nicelly, no catallitic converter of course!

It would be pretty effin awsome to see an AMX concept as a reaction to the new 2004 Mustang & 2010 Camaro. I'm rather bring back Plymouth first, given the option. Plymouth was a great brand before Chrysler forgot they existed for like 3 decades. The PT should have stayed a Plymouth like planned and they could be a hot brand again today.

Cool, Tiger Woods would be proud.

TRY AGAIN O.B. True or false: IN 1968 a deisgn study was done of a (1970) Monte Carlo four door (pillarless) hardtop?

MOTHER^%$@%^&%*$% how did I not notice that text down bottom?!

Althought I agree with much of what is said here my question was mostly a rhetorical one. Yes, government regulation and the Amercan big-3's lack of experience with small cars and fuel economy played a part but you have to agree that to at least some degree the designers just gave up. There is more "style" in a bag of ferteliser than in many late 70s or 80s cars. Yes some were quite cool but most are just lame compared to what came before. Too funny! And yet 100% true. As far as I'm concerned there was not much difference between the H & W bodies. Just as I call all 1980s FWD Mopars "K-cars" I call all midsize FWD GMs from the 80s & 90s W-bodies. It's a gross over generalization but it comes from my hate of transverse mounted motors and FWD. H-bodies were not much better than the Ws. Sure the Bonneville SSEi and Park Ave were "nice" cars but for us RWD fans they're still NOT even close to being worthy of substituting for the B-body. The G-bodys were neither full sized or reasonably priced. $37,000 (1995 money BTW) for a FWD Riviera powered by a 3800 SC? WTF is that all about??? They're gorgepous cars and all but only make fiscal sense when used. Sorry to say this but for $37,000 in 1995 people bought loaded up BMW 328s & Mustang Cobras with DOHC 32-valver V8s, not a two door Park Ave. IIRC an SLP Firehawk with 300+hp could be had for less than that. But all that aside the Aurora & Riviera were never meant to make up anything more than a drop in the bucket sales wise from the deceased B-body. ... Those complaints were valid too! Yes. true.

Earn your bonus points you slacker! :wink: (just for O.B.) Name the car make and why it's special.

Every car runs better in nipply air... it's denser, the water pump does not have to work so hard, heat disipation is no problem & when it's cold usually humidity is very low whichh in turn means less electronic gremlins.

YES! Not to mention that the term hardtop should never be used on a car with a gross, super fat, ugly B-pillar. It should be called a coupe or kammback or WTFH they can come up with in a focus group or radio promotion....

Bentley Continental GT... drove past work as I was leaving last friday. Pretty sweet & all but I'd rather pay $290,000 less for my equally stunning hardtop in '09. (Camaro, duh)

for the record the W-body Lumina/MC were the cars that "do not belong" in that lineup. I have no ill will towards the 1978 Impala except that it did not come in a hardtop. The B-body being euthenized and the W-body "taking over" all the full size car market for Chevy (nevermind Buick, Olds & Pontiac) was an absolute joke. Now in hindsight, ten years later it seems like quite possibly the lamest, dumbest thing GM has ever done in it's 8 decade History... perhaps killing Olds was worse but it's a close call.

Okay... well that's fine, so how do you call THIS progress?

Well... yes. Good responses guys. What I'm saying is how did THIS STUFF: "Evolve" into this? And this? Sixty, Please find a blackboard and write "I will not hotlink images from Tripod" 100 times. Thanks. -Z THAT IS NOT PROGRESS!!! Not trying to pick on Dodge... just picked a manufacturer at random.

Yes, leather. As Jay Leno says "Leather was the 'carbon fibre' of 1909..."

Keep it coming Y.D., trivia is fun!

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=13848

In a thread about the Honda Step-Bus concept Moltar wrote: This is a great jumping off point for my perspective on the past 120 (or so) years of the Automotive world. The Automobile was is its infancy when WWI started, it peeked once magnificently in the late 1930s and then stagnated a bit throughout the 1940s due to WWII. Many fantastic things were accomplished in the 1950s especially style wise and then in the 1960s the modern car was born & performance was given to the masses in gorgeous, candy wrapper like packages. Ever since then untill very recently the automobile has been in a downward spiral, getting worse and worse and worse. The 1970s saw the automotive equivelant of the witch trials. 95% of style & performance was sacraficed for a 05% boost in fuel economy and or safety. Instead of the beautifuly orchestrated revolutions and evolutions of the era prior to Nader and the granola bar eating nuts who insisted oil wells would completely dry up by 1982 and cars were evil, the wheel kept getting reinvented and people who should have not ever even had a driver's license were allowed dictate how cars should & would be designed and engineered. The baby was thrown out with the bath water... the forrest was right in front of people's eyes but they saw no trees, Horrible things were alowed to occur for tyhe sake of the misguided masses' idea of a "greater good" and stupidity prevailed. We have the power to design a new car that looks just as dazzling and dramatic as a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado but with all the modern usefull featueres that have true benefit but none of the modern junk that is useless and conterproductive. Why is it that 99% of the cars still suck so much? Because mediocrity is celebrated & good ideas die on the drawign board when gutless pu$$ies are allowed to micro-& macro-manage a company to death. It's like this: Tail fins, functional hood scoops, big chrome grilles & other elaborate styling: good matte black safety bumpers: bad LEDs for tail lights & turn signals etc: good over regulation of styling features pertaining to lights etc: bad fuel injection: good 174 feet of emmissions hoses underhood: bad thin sheetmetal: bad crumple zones: good bland styling: bad modern CAD designed safety cage: good unibody on everything every time: bad "smart" air bags & seatbelts: good Solid ugly B-pillars on cars which started off as hardtops on the drawing board: bad Giving the average consumer choices and alternatives: good Telling the consumer what he/she NEEDS or WANTS because it is conveniant: bad I'd love to hear a discussion about this. Do you agree... disagree? How does this all pertain to GM and the big three? How about the whole concept of a "world car" and all of today's homogization of all things across the different corners of the globe? Discuss amongst yourselves... (althought you KNOW I'll jump in too)

Why was he so evil again...? (honestly I'm asking)

Nope... I have not been to a store to buy car crap in quite a while. I'll have to pick up about two dozen of those Camaros though. Two or three just for Sofia.

Yes and seven managers to oversee the whole process. Aren't unions %$#& great!?