 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Antique Cars / May 2004Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-04-27-last-olds_x.htm Herewith my commentary. -- MBAssholes, or Requiem for a Heavyweight The last-ever new Oldsmobile will be assembled the day after tomorrow. I have no particularly strong emotional attachment to Oldsmobile as a product or as a brand, and tend to cast a jaundiced eye towards GM's products in general, but historically the division's engineering was frequently the best -- or if nothing else the least worst -- of its type across all of GM. In the 1950s, the Oldsmobile version of the Hydramatic transmission was the best one, and Chevrolet was still futzing around with the grossly inferior Powerglide. In the 1970s, Oldsmobiles were the only GM cars that ran well and got relatively decent fuel economy while complying with then-new exhaust emission control requirements, which was quite a feat given the state of the engine-management art of the day. Olds engines were demonstrably superior in structure, function and materials than their counterparts from other GM divisions, and not just barely -- such was the difference that when GM began sneaking inferior Chevrolet-built engines in place of Olds-built engines in 1977, customers howled and GM faced a costly class-action lawsuit. The MBAssholes at GM, in the manner of their verminous kind at virtually every other US company, consider it beneath their station to know anything about the goods or services their company makes. To them the cars are nothing but "product", and their buyers (end users) are considered brainless boobs easily bamboozled into seeing a new car where only taillights and nameplates differ from an otherwise-identical model badged as a Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, etc. Likewise, these degreed fools frown on legitimate and significant innovation. This is a chicken-and-egg scenario: The public has been fed such a steady diet of trivially minuscule "improvements" for so long that by and large they willingly buy whatever is offered. GM sold a lot of Luminas. Ford sells a ton of Tauri. And it's not just domestic makers, either. Mitsubishi has same-same-samed itself to imminent death. Volvo decided to court the masochist market a decade ago by forgetting, after five decades of doing so, how to build a reliable electrical system. This move put them in direct competition with VW, a company that never knew how in the first place and so was spared the inconvenience of trying to forget. But I digress. Through the latter '70s, '80s and '90s, Oldsmobile's engineering superiority was diluted and then eliminated with the homogenization of all GM passenger cars. The resultant ChevrOldsmoBuAcs all looked, drove, lived and died pretty much alike (with the obvious exception of the aforementioned taillights and nameplates). For a brief few years, it looked like Saturn was going to be the Think-Different GM division, but it was soon turning out its own taillamps, grilles and nameplates to go on the corporate identicars. The ruse worked for a little while. The Oldsmobile Cutlass had enjoyed a fine reputation for reliability and a top slot in North American sales figures for a very long time, with extremely loyal customers coming back again and again. GM effectively killed Oldsmobile around 1986, slapping Oldsmobile badges on corporate-common cars. Those repeat buyers still came back for one or two or three new Oldses, but the cars, while some of them were perfectly honest, decent cars, were as innovative as a wooden kitchen match, and new customers drove away in stays. By the late 1990s, the wall was written off. People weren't buying a lot of Oldsmobiles (oddly enough, changing the name of the division's most-successful car from bold and evocative "Cutlass" to the nonlexical focusgroupism "Achieva" not only didn't increase sales but made the car the butt of jokes involving the word "under"), and the MBAssholes simply finished the job they'd started twenty years before. The selfsame thing happened to Plymouth. Remember Plymouth? The brand officially disappeared a couple years ago, but it really went away in 1974, when the only difference between a Dodge and a Plymouth became which nameplate was on the fender and hood. The Prowler was much too little, far too late, for way too few people. The PT Cruiser was originally conceived as a Plymouth, and it, together with a few other truly different cars, even if they'd been based on corporate platforms, would surely have propelled that brand back to high-flying success. But, no. It's all "product", and they don't teach anything about "product" in MBA school except that it's icky, to be dealt with only by equally-icky brown people with blue collars, and should be outsourced to China whenever possible. Ptewph. Copyright (C) 2004 Daniel J. Stern, all rights reserved The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. > The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at > Consumer Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good > compared to the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. And you consider this to be something "strange about GM". Interesting. Did it not occur to you that the explanation lies (as it were) in something strange about Condemner Retards? > The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer > Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to > the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. See groups.google.com for why you shouldn't put faith in what CR says about cars. Note the posts about the badge engineered cars shared by domestic and import makers. >The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to >the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. That's because the average Buick buyer is 63 years old and can't see defects or hear rattles. Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people around and don't understand the difference between repairs and maintenance. Their cars "never" need repairs because they've been convinced water pump replacement at x miles is maintenance. Hence the "good" repair records for Japanese cars. >>The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >>Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to >>the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. > > That's because the average Buick buyer is 63 years old and can't see > defects or hear rattles. I think it's in the high 50's actually. Most people who buy one new have plenty of time and money for preventative maintainence and don't drive them very hard. >I think it's in the high 50's actually. Most people who buy one >new have plenty of time and money for preventative maintainence >and don't drive them very hard. As of last year, Buick was the highest at 63. Cadillac was 55, Chrysler 50. Toyota was the highest import at 47. >> That's because the average Buick buyer is 63 years old and can't see >> defects or hear rattles. > > I think it's in the high 50's actually. Most people who buy one > new have plenty of time and money for preventative maintainence > and don't drive them very hard. No, Buicks are actually pretty darn well made. Try to convince me that Buick Grand Nationals from the 80s were "not driven very hard!" And more Buicks in recent years (by percentage) tend to get the Buick-designed 3800 v6 than the Shiv-o-lay-designed 3400 v6. GM still has deeper and more fundamental engineering differences between its divisions than any other manufacturer, although they are surely disappearing toward the lowest-common-denominator junk motors (eg. Chevy 3400) or high-end engines like the Northstar (which really replaced Cadillac's in-house engine division, which itself was very good until the late 70s). I would take slight issue with Dan's original assertion that Oldsmobile was so far ahead of ALL other GM divisions in engineering- Olds most certainly kicked the pants off Shove-a-lot and Pantycrack, but Buick also had excellent engines and cars. The Buick 455 was more powerful than the Olds 455, WAY more reliable than the Shivvy 454, had a rod-ratio almost as good as a Mopar big-block, and weighed about the same as a Shivvy 350 smallblock. > >The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer > >Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > convinced water pump replacement at x miles is maintenance. Hence the > "good" repair records for Japanese cars. It *IS* maintenance, when the WP is driven by the cam belt. Not that I agree with that design philosophy (Yo! Dr. Ing. H.C. F. Porsche, you listening?) the consequences of having the WP seize up before the next scheduled cam belt replacement are just too horrible to contemplate. nate > Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people > around and don't understand the difference between repairs and > maintenance. OK, I'll bite--which country-of-origin's car owners are the most mechanically brilliant? >>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people >>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and >>maintenance. > > OK, I'll bite--which country-of-origin's car owners are the most > mechanically brilliant? I'd vote for one of the former soviet republics. A fair number of really bad cars around and no money for mechanics. They ALL do the work themselves! Dan >>>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people >>>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > really bad cars around and no money for mechanics. They ALL do the work > themselves! I'd vote for cuba and all makes. 1950s US made cars and no supply of replacement parts. They use bits from soviet block vehicles that copied the US designs of the era and recondition everything else including welding on to transmission gears and recutting the teeth. And the damn US coast guard keeps sinking their boat cars/trucks. >>>>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people >>>>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the US designs of the era and recondition everything else including > welding on to transmission gears and recutting the teeth. Well, that's no longer true. With the proliferation of U.S. plants in Mexico, there are a fair number of more modern vehicles filtering into the country via Central America. I'm surprized that Japan or Korea or India doesn't ship cars there directly. > > I'd vote for cuba and all makes. 1950s US made cars and no supply of > > replacement parts. They use bits from soviet block vehicles that > > copied the US designs of the era and recondition everything else > > including welding on to transmission gears and recutting the teeth. > Well, that's no longer true. For a large percentage of the Cuban population, it is still reality. > I'm surprized that Japan or Korea or India doesn't ship cars there > directly. And I'm *not* surprised you didn't know that they do. Korean cars are rather common in Cuba. I'm with you. It broke my heart when they sank that 48 Chevy 2-ton. It looked good enough for a car show if it had made it to the states. > >>>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people > >>>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And the damn US coast guard keeps sinking their boat cars/trucks. > I'm with you. It broke my heart when they sank that 48 Chevy 2-ton. It > looked good enough for a car show if it had made it to the states. It breaks my heart when they sink any of them. I'd try to pick it up, clean it up and put it in a museum. > > I'm with you. It broke my heart when they sank that 48 Chevy 2-ton. It > > looked good enough for a car show if it had made it to the states. > > It breaks my heart when they sink any of them. I'd try to pick it up, clean > it up and put it in a museum. Based on the replies I'm seeing it's obvious I completely botched the question, but what the hey--this turned into a great sub-thread. I'd say the Vietnamese deserve at least an honorable mention for their mechanical expertise with limited resources--although their spit and bailing wire is more commonly applied to elderly Honda 50s and Vespa scooters than to cars. If anyone cares, what I meant to ask was, within the US, whose manufacturer's car owners are providing the *best* informed answers to CR about reliability? The USAians' (GM/Ford/Kreissler)? Swedes'(Saab/Volvo)? Germans' (VW/BMW/Audi)? Koreans' (Hyundai/Kia)? I'd lean toward German car owners based on my personal experience of those who've owned 'em, but [shrug]... --Dirk (who can think of at least three GM divisions he'd dump before Olds) > >>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people > >>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dan Dem boys from the CSA (Confederate States of America) did pretty good in the pre-NASCAR bootleggin' days (when the term "stock car" was more than just a meaningless name) at being self-sufficient. In fact - that's how NASCAR got its start. They had to be pretty good to consistently outrun the federal revenooers and the local law enforcement (that is, if the local law enforcement wasn't in on the take). Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") > OK, I'll bite--which country-of-origin's car owners are the most > mechanically brilliant? Yugoslavia. You have to be, to keep them running. >> Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people >> around and don't understand the difference between repairs and >> maintenance. > >OK, I'll bite--which country-of-origin's car owners are the most >mechanically brilliant? I like a line in a recent classic mag that said the Brits are the best at welding because they know they'll never find a rust-free car. But logically, the Italians should be the best home welders on the planet. The Brits should be the best at diagnosing electrical faults. The US population is the best at engine swaps: we can put a small-block Chevy or Windsor into any model car on the planet, no matter how ill-advised that might be. Emanuel  Signature1983 Porsche 911 1983 Porsche 944 >>The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >>Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >convinced water pump replacement at x miles is maintenance. Hence the >"good" repair records for Japanese cars. Depends on whether 'x' is 40,000 or 140,000. Parts wear, there's no getting around that. YEP and this is why I drive a 1935 series 40 . Even Buick went down a little after the war. Steve E. >The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to >the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. > The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer > Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to > the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. I imagine this is mostly due to the 3800 V-6, which is probably the best engine going in the GM fambly right now. nate >>The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >>Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to >>the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. > > I imagine this is mostly due to the 3800 V-6, which is probably the > best engine going in the GM fambly right now. That engine is one reason I got my current "beater", a '96 88 which is a delightful car, plenty of power and gas mileage of 24 to 27mpg (throwing out the aberrant highs and lows). My history with Olds starts with my new '67 CS 442 convertible, which I beat all to hell on all-night rallies and it just kept on ticking. Then I got a '66 CS 442 hardtop, used, which someone else beat all to hell but it was still a solid car. I have a '68 Olds 88 with 455 and 3 speed on the column. You know someone had to put down a big wad to get the dealer to order that. In the 13yrs I've had it I've replaced a starter and battery, is all. Will never sell it, can't get enough money out of it to buy anything else. Norm (no more studes, Nate, but a passel of old hemis now) -- "The web has got me caught. I'd rather have the blues than what I've got." <via Nat King Cole> >>The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer >>Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to >>the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports. > > I imagine this is mostly due to the 3800 V-6, which is probably the > best engine going in the GM fambly right now. Very true. The 3.1 and 3.4 engines are known to have numerous fixable problems with them that GM refuses to address. The 3800 is fine, but the engine wasn't really made to work with the new coolant(seals and gaskets). Q: what year did they change from using old-fashioned antifreeze? > MBAssholes, or Requiem for a Heavyweight > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > frequently the best -- or if nothing else the least worst -- of its type > across all of GM. Pure olds stuff is actually the only GM stuff I have respect for. I once frequented a BBS where the autos group was dominated by olds fanatics. Even though I was blue oval I had enough olds knowledge to fit in. (my grandfather only had oldsmobiles, at least in my lifetime) Oldsmobile was the division that GM should have standardized to if it wanted to make good cars. But the MBA types aren't interested in making good cars, they want to make crap and make the crap appear to be a good car. <olds superiority to other GM divisons> > The MBAssholes at GM, in the manner of their verminous kind at virtually > every other US company, consider it beneath their station to know anything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > taillights and nameplates differ from an otherwise-identical model badged > as a Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, etc. Yep. I have encountered the exact same thing. Management doesn't want hear about making a good product. Only making sure it ships on time using the crappiest in the world suppliers for the parts. > The ruse worked for a little while. The Oldsmobile Cutlass had enjoyed a > fine reputation for reliability and a top slot in North American sales > figures for a very long time, with extremely loyal customers coming back > again and again. GM effectively killed Oldsmobile around 1986, slapping > Oldsmobile badges on corporate-common cars. Yep, that's when the real oldsmobiles died. 1985. However, it appears the wagon lived until 1990, along with the 307. (I recently saw one in good shape on the used car lot of a local chebby dealer) > But, no. It's all "product", and they don't teach anything about "product" > in MBA school except that it's icky, to be dealt with only by equally-icky > brown people with blue collars, and should be outsourced to China whenever > possible. Don't forget us engineers. We might as well all be 'icky brown people' as far as the MBAs are concerned. Just think of the good old GE method of bottom 10% to cycle out engineers with experience that know how to build good product and replace them with cheaper, moldable and controlable fresh outs. Guess what I had on my answering machine today? A recruiter wanting me to go back to my former employer, a typical large american corporation where my ranting about making a good product first and foremost got me marked for downsizing. Oh and then there was the time I got a talking to for offering to help a customer myself. Heaven forbid I actually help the poor sap that bought one of the last product I worked on there, the one I tried my best to fix but was unfixable. >>MBAssholes, or Requiem for a Heavyweight >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I once frequented a BBS where the autos group was dominated by > olds fanatics. 442. Ah.... (smile) Okay, a 1960's Buick Skylark convertable is great as well. >>>MBAssholes, or Requiem for a Heavyweight >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Okay, a 1960's Buick Skylark convertable is great as well. Yes, with that lovely shallow V8 350. MMmmmmm. >>Okay, a 1960's Buick Skylark convertable is great as well. > > Yes, with that lovely shallow V8 350. MMmmmmm. I was thinking of the older ones with the smaller 218 V8. : 442. Ah.... (smile) : Okay, a 1960's Buick Skylark convertable is great as well. My first "old" hobby car was a '64 Skylark convert with the 330 V-8, aluminum heads and all. Nice car, fun cruiser. Then I got a 2nd hobby car, a 68 Cutlass S with the 350. Not quite a 4-4-2, but fun nonetheless. The Olds was (is) a much better car than the Buick. It's criminal how GM let this brand and all the heritage die. R. I. P. Oldsmobile. We never realized how good you were until you were gone. -- Greg Beaulieu ab348@chebucto.ns.ca Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Olds List Admin Info: http://oldslist.oldsgmail.com > > MBAssholes, or Requiem for a Heavyweight > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > good cars, they want to make crap and make the crap appear to be a good > car. Apparently the Caddy 472/500 engines are pretty darn good too. There's a small but respectable contingent of the Studebaker club that seems to think that the Caddy motors make a nifty swap into a Studebaker C-K (coupe/hardtop) body. I can't really argue with them, but that might almost be too much motor for those little cars. (note that I said almost.) Also I've heard that they make good replacements for a BBC in a work truck. Of course, eventually Caddy got SBCs as well, although they did have their own engine for a while - the 4100 - the less said about same the better. nate > Apparently the Caddy 472/500 engines are pretty darn good too. > There's a small but respectable contingent of the Studebaker club that > seems to think that the Caddy motors make a nifty swap into a > Studebaker C-K (coupe/hardtop) body. They're also reasonably popular with hot-rodders and off-roaders, believe it or not. The 472 was the last truly great pure Cadillac engine, the 500 was a step in the wrong direction, and then they fell off a mile-high cliff and were crushed by the HT4100 and V-8-6-4 :-p But Cadillac engineering re-emerged 10 years later as the Northstar, which this old Mopar fan concedes is a true world-class engine. > Of course, eventually Caddy got SBCs as well, Not many. Most Fleetwoods and Broughams got the Olds 307, which was not a bad engine but was suffering badly from GM sinking tons of money into the SBC to make it meet emissions, live longer, and get more power out of it. They could have done the same for less using either the Olds or Buick v8 as a starting point, IMO. The Olds 307/350 met the same fate as the Chrysler slant six in its final years- smothered under a ton of "add-on" emissions gear rather than addressing combustion chamber design, cam design, and valve/port design, all of which the Chevy 350 received, and the same applied to the Olds engine could have made it far better than the Chevy 350. > engine, the 500 was a step in the wrong direction, and then they fell > off a mile-high cliff and were crushed by the HT4100 and V-8-6-4 :-p Oh, the V8->4 concept is back at GM btw. I joked at the autoshow display that a diesel engine made from a gasoline block would be next. And despite that failure, it does say something about the olds 350 that it worked _at all_. > design, cam design, and valve/port design, all of which the Chevy 350 > > received, and the same applied to the Olds engine could have made it far > > better than the Chevy 350. One of the few points a wide agreement I've found is that GM should have standardized on the olds 350 rather than the chevy. >>engine, the 500 was a step in the wrong direction, and then they fell >>off a mile-high cliff and were crushed by the HT4100 and V-8-6-4 :-p > > Oh, the V8->4 concept is back at GM btw. And at Chrysler. The Hemi in the 300-C has cylinder deactivation, and I've already seen a few prowling the highways. I drove a 300C yesterday. The handles is much superior to the on FWD chassis. At 33K loaded and with a V8 it demonstrates how much less expensively RWD vehicles can be built than FWD like the Pacifics. The deactivation sequence is undetectable engaging and disengaging. What surprises me is it will only get 25 MPG same as the V8 Mustang and it only requires regular gas. I would expect to see something closes to 30 MPG. mike hunt > >>engine, the 500 was a step in the wrong direction, and then they fell > >>off a mile-high cliff and were crushed by the HT4100 and V-8-6-4 :-p [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And at Chrysler. The Hemi in the 300-C has cylinder deactivation, and > I've already seen a few prowling the highways. On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:22:38 -0400, some stupid top-posting, nym-shifting troll currentlly calling himself BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote: >I drove a 300C yesterday. The handles is much superior to the on >FWD chassis. At 33K loaded and with a V8 it demonstrates how >much less expensively RWD vehicles can be built than FWD like the >Pacifics. It does no such thing, "Mike", as front-drive is in fact cheaper to build than rear-drive. You can't just grab two vehicles at random and make the claim you did above. > What surprises me is it will only get 25 MPG same as > the V8 Mustang and it only requires regular > gas. I would expect to see something closes to 30 MPG. Not with a car that big. What is to be noted is that it gets BETTER numbers than the Pacifica, while being much more powerful and faster. > >>engine, the 500 was a step in the wrong direction, and then they fell > >>off a mile-high cliff and were crushed by the HT4100 and V-8-6-4 :-p [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And at Chrysler. The Hemi in the 300-C has cylinder deactivation, and > I've already seen a few prowling the highways. Funny how Chrysler doesn't talk about that in the ads. Interferes with the hairychested muscleman fantasy, I guess. Olds was considered to be a test bed for GM. The 1949 Futuramic (?) with the rocket 88 was an example. The designer of the engine made a short stroke OHV with hollow push rods which was the precurser of the Chevy small block. Cadillac also used a version of the same engine at the same time. Olds had the hydramatic transmission, Rocket 88 engine, autronic eye, I think the first A/C in GM cars, 12 volt ignition in 1953. Great engineers. Where did they go wrong? Where did they go wrong ? IMHO when GM went to corporate motors and the only differences in the cars were the front & rear ends and maybe the interiors were different . By the way I really loved my Dads '68 Cutlass Supreme. To bad they weren't my Dads Olds anymore !! Bad ad campaign . Terry God Bless Our Troops http://www.nanettes-place.com/terryspontiac.htm > Olds was considered to be a test bed for GM. The 1949 Futuramic (?) with > the rocket 88 was an example. The designer of the engine made a short [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think the first A/C in GM cars, 12 volt ignition in 1953. Great > engineers. Where did they go wrong? >By the way I really loved my Dads '68 Cutlass Supreme. To bad they weren't >my Dads Olds anymore !! Bad ad campaign . GM was trying to appeal to a younger group of buyers with that ad campaign. The average age of an Olds buyer was around 55+ and they wanted to get it much lower. Sales of Olds cars have been declining for many years. Painful as it is for many people, GM made the right decision by dumping the brand. Nate Nagel <njnagel@hotmail.com> writes > Of course, eventually Caddy got SBCs as well, although > they did have their own engine for a while - the 4100 > - the less said about same the better. And now Chrysler is offering its own dual-displacement engine in the 300C. It'll be interesting to see how that works out. Geoff Signature"When life hands you a lemon, pull out a gun and start shooting." > http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-04-27-last-olds_x.htm Faugh. A f.cking *Alero.* A far cry from the '67 Cutlass I remember being carted around in as a kid. In an era of 1st-gen FWD blandboxes it stood out proudly, a gleaming gunmetal grey battleship in a sea of dinghys. The damned thing still was eminently roadworthy at 300,000 miles, although it did need a new carburetor and the frame was starting to rust. Had I been a little older and/or smarter I would have asked my dad to put it upstairs in my grandfather's barn for me, rather than sending it to the Big Parking Lot in the Sky as he did. The interior was still pristine, with the original factory floormats even... I still see Cutlasses, F-85s and 442s of that era on the roads occasionally, can you say the same for many Olds products since? Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years from now? Hell I'll trade you a brand new Alero just to have that Cutlass back. nate > Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years > from now? Can you see anyone waxing nostalgic about ANY car made in the past 20-odd years since the Buick GN/GNX? I mean any car that the average joe could realistically own and their kids could aquire memories of riding to school in- like a '67 Plymouth GTX, or a '67 Cutlass, or a '69 Torino? Maybe there'll be people admiring Vipers and C6 (feh! its a C5.0.1) Corvettes in 30 years, and the odd PT Cruiser, or Cooper Mini will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. >> Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years >> from now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows >today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. You've forgotten some worthy cars. Like my Toyota Supra Twin Turbo, for example. 8) World-class RWD platform (shared with the Lexus SC coupe), bullet-proof DOHC inline-6, Getrag 6-speed tranny, etc, etc. >>Can you see anyone waxing nostalgic about ANY car made in the past >>20-odd years since the Buick GN/GNX? I mean any car that the average joe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for example. 8) World-class RWD platform (shared with the Lexus SC > coupe), bullet-proof DOHC inline-6, Getrag 6-speed tranny, etc, etc. No, I didn't forget it. I've seen a modified one lay down over 700 rear-wheel horsepower on the dyno with a stock rotating assembly in the engine, but its not a car that has any real appeal in the way that an old GTO or Roadrunner does. If they'd made it decent to LOOK at, used about 90% less cheap plastic trim, or otherwise given it character, they'd have had something there. >>>Can you see anyone waxing nostalgic about ANY car made in the past >>>20-odd years since the Buick GN/GNX? I mean any car that the average joe [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >about 90% less cheap plastic trim, or otherwise given it character, >they'd have had something there. Well, having bad interiors didn't kill the appeal of the 60's muscle cars... 8) As for it's over-all appeal, I'll grant you it's neither as old, nor as American, as those other cars you mention... 8) thing there. > Well, having bad interiors didn't kill the appeal of the 60's muscle > cars... Whatchoo talking about? The bar-none coolest interior that EVER went in any vehicle was in the '66/67 Charger, and that's just one example. The 60s were FILLED with cars that had classy interiors. The plastic assault didn't come along until around 70, although my '69 Coronet has a noticeably inferior interior to my '66 Polara. > thing there. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whatchoo talking about? The bar-none coolest interior that EVER went in > any vehicle was in the '66/67 Charger... Ah yes! My wife and I used to date in my dad's '66 Charger. Rolled factory leather upholstery. Seems "I read somewhere" that you could fold the back seats perfectly flat with the trunk floor and, from there, stare up at the stars and moon thru the rear window. 8^) Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") > Ah yes! My wife and I used to date in my dad's '66 Charger. Rolled > factory leather upholstery. Seems "I read somewhere" that you could > fold the back seats perfectly flat with the trunk floor and, from there, > stare up at the stars and moon thru the rear window. 8^) ...til it fogs up... > Ah yes! My wife and I used to date in my dad's '66 Charger. Rolled > factory leather upholstery. Seems "I read somewhere" that you could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with "x") I own a 66 Dodge Charger, and have had it since I was 15 (I'm 23 now). From the front buckets back to the trunk is a flat level surface when the seats are folded down. Only problem is those pesky chrome trim pieces on the backs of the back seats hurt after a while :) And the electroluminescent dash lights make a nice blue glow for mood lighting! SignatureNick <Remove number one if replying by electronic mail> >>Whatchoo talking about? The bar-none coolest interior that EVER went in >>any vehicle was in the '66/67 Charger... > > Ah yes! My wife and I used to date in my dad's '66 Charger. Rolled > factory leather upholstery. And electroluminescent gauges mounted in pods, rear bucket seats with rear console in some models, tons of chrome and machine-turned steel, etc. etc. etc. > Seems "I read somewhere" that you could > fold the back seats perfectly flat with the trunk floor and, from there, > stare up at the stars and moon thru the rear window. 8^) <resisting the obvious comment....> :-) >>thing there. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Should we ask how your wife found this out before she told you? |>))) Dan > > Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years > > from now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows > today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. 1984-86 Mustang SVO. Good looks, affordable, decently quick and super handling. >>>Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years >>>from now? >> >>Can you see anyone waxing nostalgic about ANY car made in the past >>20-odd years since the Buick GN/GNX? <> > 1984-86 Mustang SVO. Good looks, affordable, decently quick and super > handling. Less powerful and more expensive to insure than the cheaper and more reliable Mustang GT. If the SVO is ever collectable, it will only be because there are so few left running. And even THAT was't enough to make the Mustang II collectable, so I have my doubts about the SVO as well... >>>>Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years >>>>from now? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make the Mustang II collectable, so I have my doubts about the SVO as > well... The SVO got all the superior parts for that chasis. It is already collectable and has been for a number of years now. > >>>Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years > >>>from now? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make the Mustang II collectable, so I have my doubts about the SVO as > well... The SVO was pretty much instantly collectible. Not that anybody in this group would care. > > Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years > > from now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows > today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. Hot imports will still imprint you for life. I mean really hot imports; the old turbo 4wd Eclipse, old Galants with the same drivetrain as the turbo 4wd eclipse, subaru wrxs, maybe even the various acura and honda type rs. > Hot imports will still imprint you for life. I mean really hot > imports; the old turbo 4wd Eclipse, old Galants with the same > drivetrain as the turbo 4wd eclipse, subaru wrxs, maybe even the > various acura and honda type rs. If those are "hot," or will ever be collectable, then the world is a sadder place than I realized. I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. Here are some times for those old nostalgic cars for 0-60 and 1/4 mile: Ford Torino Cobra SCJ 7.3 14.90 ( http://tinyurl.com/24oad ) 1969 Plymouth GTX 440 5.8 13.7 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) 1967 Cutlass "Turnpike Cruiser" 8.7 16.5 ( http://tinyurl.com/2hvkf ) 1967 Cutlass 442 7.1 15.5 ( http://tinyurl.com/2hvkf ) And I'll throw in an old favorite: A 1967 Ford Mustang (390ci V8 w/4spd) 7.4 15.6 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) Of course, the Gremlin was a joke: 1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) But the PT Cruiser GT has real potential: 2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Manual) 6.4 15.3 ( http://tinyurl.com/2nv6n ) 2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Auto) 7.2 15.7 (http://tinyurl.com/3gbng ) The GTX is the only car that could beat the manual version of the PT. And, yes, I can imagine waxing nostalgic about good times in the PT cruiser: cruising the highway, playing tunes on the CD-player over and over and over again. It's a lot easier than with a radio or 8-track. What about memories about tailgate parties from the back of the PT. Those will be cherished. And yes, memories of rides to school in the old PT Cruiser... Joe R > > Can you see *anyone* waxing nostalgic about an Alero thirty-some years > > from now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows > today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. >I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to >the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Of course, the Gremlin was a joke: >1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) The 304 X was pretty darn quick, a 360 HO even quicker, and a 401 was incredibly quick!!!!! And yes, you COULD buy a Gremmy with a 401 straight from the dealer - if you knew the right dealer. (not a factory option, but a dealer installed special) >But the PT Cruiser GT has real potential: >2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Manual) 6.4 15.3 ( [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows >> today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. I'm partial to the Dodge Omni GLH and GLHS. The Dodge Spirit R/T was also another quick car. These were all practical and could surprise many sports cars from their era. --------------- Alex I certainly stand corrected. I had no idea there were such gremlins out there. Joe Robinjoe Wrote: > >Of course, the Gremlin was a joke: > >1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) > The 304 X was pretty darn quick, a 360 HO even quicker, and a 401 was > incredibly quick!!!!! And yes, you COULD buy a Gremmy with a 401 > straight from the dealer - if you knew the right dealer. (not a > factory option, but a dealer installed special) Robinjoe Wrote: > >But the PT Cruiser GT has real potential: > >2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Manual) 6.4 15.3 ( > >http://tinyurl.com/2nv6n ) > >2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (Auto) 7.2 15.7 (http://tinyurl.com/3gbng > The 304 X was pretty darn quick, a 360 HO even quicker, and a 401 was > incredibly quick!!!!! And yes, you COULD buy a Gremmy with a 401 > straight from the dealer - if you knew the right dealer. (not a > factory option, but a dealer installed special) Woa! All I knew about was the 304 - borrowed a friends a couple of times. Even that was dangerous in the hands of a youngster! 360 or 401!? I can't imagine. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") > I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to > the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. The PT GT is a fine car for its day, but it can't really compare with the styling, power, and visceral appeal of 60s cars. :-) If you go back and look again, I did list the PT Cruiser as one of a handful of modern cars that MIGHT still have a following 30 years from now. Frankly, I think Roadrunners will STILL outnumber PT Cruisers at carshows in the year 2034. > I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to > the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > will show up as about as much of an oddity as AMC Gremlins at car shows > > today, but *nothing* else will even be remembered. Ahh yes the day of bias ply tires that would spin untill the car barely got any traction. Then would spin at every upshift. The slicks of the day were not much better. SS/A cars from that era, run about 3&1/2 to 4 seconds quicker at nestalgia drags with modern slicks. 3 to 4 seconds? That's right. Take all those cars you think you could wax and run them with modern radial tires. Your PT crusier will show what a joke it is. My 84 C-10 with a high milage 305 Eats PT Cruisers for lunch. Charles > Ahh yes the day of bias ply tires that would spin untill the car barely > got any traction. Then would spin at every upshift. The slicks of the day [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My 84 C-10 with a high milage 305 Eats PT Cruisers for lunch. > Charles So its the tires fault? I don't know what kind of race drivers you watched, but if they were losing all their performance spinning tires, they needed how to be taught to drive. Gimmie a break, why don't you go stick your head back into the sand? And Wow, a 305 can eat a 150 hp PT for lunch! (most PTs are NONturbos) What an accomplishment!! what's next VW Bugs? > So its the tires fault? I don't know what kind of race drivers you watched, > but if they were losing all their performance spinning tires, they needed > how to be taught to drive. Are you really so dumb as this sounds? Of COURSE bias-ply tires made a huge difference. That doesn't mean the drivers spun them all the way down the track, but if you have to back off the launch to AVOID spinning the tires, the ET suffers a lot. 60s muscle cars run MUCH faster on modern radial tires than they did on the original bias plies. A '69 Roadrunner or Coronet R/T would run in the mid 14s on bias ply tires according to most road tests at the time, and they're easily mid-13 cars on modern rubber. > > So its the tires fault? I don't know what kind of race drivers you watched, > > but if they were losing all their performance spinning tires, they needed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mid 14s on bias ply tires according to most road tests at the time, and > they're easily mid-13 cars on modern rubber. Hey Butt-head; The quoted poster said that they spin tires for 3 to 4 seconds down the track, I didn't say bias-ply tires made NO difference, but for anyone to judge a cars performance statistics spinning the tires that long is an..., well, not that smart. I'm sure people trying to measure a car's performance today still have to worry about spinning tires, although not as much. You might want to read the the post I was responding to before jumping in with your insulting response, which there was no need for. >but for anyone to >judge a cars performance statistics spinning the tires that long is an..., >well, not that smart. Kind of like screwing up English in a sentence like you did above... Well excusssssseee meeee!! I didn't know my typing abilities were being graded, who are you? the newsgroup punctuation gestapo? Get a life > >but for anyone to > >judge a cars performance statistics spinning the tires that long is an..., > >well, not that smart. > > Kind of like screwing up English in a sentence like you did above... > > > So its the tires fault? I don't know what kind of race drivers you > watched, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > might want to read the the post I was responding to before jumping in with > your insulting response, which there was no need for. Actually I said Most real Muscle cars (Big Block intermediate & pony cars), are as much as 3 to 4 seconds quicker. Don't mis-quote. Charles >>Are you really so dumb as this sounds? <snip gramatically-challenged nonsensical response> I'll take that as a "yes." I'll take that you're a first-class a.s Wipe..... do you understand that or do you need someone to spell it out for you? SRG > >>Are you really so dumb as this sounds? > > <snip gramatically-challenged nonsensical response> > > I'll take that as a "yes." > > Ahh yes the day of bias ply tires that would spin untill the car > barely [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > back into the sand? And Wow, a 305 can eat a 150 hp PT for lunch! (most PTs > are NONturbos) What an accomplishment!! what's next VW Bugs? My father from 1969 to 1975 ran SS/A. That's NHRA Drag Racing Super Stock, A class. This was before they had P/S or Pro Stock. Using a 1969 Yenko Camaro with a Built 427. Running against the likes of Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins. My fathers car would Spin the slicks in 4th gear at half track if full throttle was given. So at half track, a car modified to the extent allowed by the class rules, was losing traction. Yet was still running 11's in the 1/4 mile. I have not only tracked that car down, and talked to the current owner. I also know that car is illegal to run at a drag strip these days. It is too fast for it's level of safety equpiment. Which is factory 1969 Camaro seat belts. No roll cage. Who's going to distroy a car wouth a half million to put a roll cage in it? As for race drivers I have watched, I have watched some of the best. I have even known a few. I have watched many old films from the 60's & 70's of cars going down a drag strip. If you ever look at a film of an old "Sling Shot" front engine dragster going down the 1/4 mile, you will see the tires smoke from start to finsh. And they were going over 180 MPH when they went to rear engine dragsters aka "Diggers" in Top Fuel Dragster (TF/D). As for my 305, considering the truck empty weights over 5,000 pounds, and has 300+K mimes on the all orginal driveline. That's pretty impressive. Then you take in to account it was only rated at 170HP new and that should tell you a lot. BTW: it only has 3.08 rear gears, so it desn't start really pulling till 70 MPH. Charles "Charles Bendig" <rarepartshunter@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:keUmc.106562(TF/D). > As for my 305, considering the truck empty weights over 5,000 pounds, > and has 300+K mimes on the all orginal driveline. That's pretty impressive. > Then you take in to account it was only rated at 170HP new and that should > tell you a lot. BTW: it only has 3.08 rear gears, so it desn't start really > pulling till 70 MPH. > Charles So, going back to your original flame, you drag race 150 hp PT Cruisers, with your 170 hp 5000 lb 300k miles truck and "eat them for lunch". Well, as Chris Rock would say, "What do you want, a cookie?" Do these people even know that they are racing? Me, when I see some idiot drag racing me down a street to get to the next light, I take my foot off the gas to stay away from him, and hope the cops ticket that idiot before he kills someone. Boy, for a guy who supposedly knows a lot about cars/trucks, that was a smart buy. A 5000 lb truck with a 170hp engine. That you also drag race people on the street with. Unless you take it to the track? Ok, you win, whatever you say.... >:|"Charles Bendig" <rarepartshunter@yahoo.com> wrote in message >:|news:keUmc.106562(TF/D). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >:|people on the street with. Unless you take it to the track? Ok, you win, >:|whatever you say.... it's amazing that people forget how far and fast the HP race has come in the LD truck market. in 1986, a chevy 350 put out 165 HP; 1987, 210HP; 1996, 255HP. in the last 5 years it's gone from having zero vehicles (trucks) with 300 HP (the 1998 454 had 295HP) to almost EVERY truck having 300 PLUS hp. horse power isn't everything. just ask the guy with his '89 W250 diesel how much his 165HP Cummins can pull. -Bret > "Charles Bendig" <rarepartshunter@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:keUmc.106562(TF/D). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > people on the street with. Unless you take it to the track? Ok, you win, > whatever you say.... Actually I get challenged pretty often. My 300+K carburator has an erradic idle circut. So it sounds like it has a big cam. Maybe I should have put a third baffle the mufler I hand built for the truck. I uncorked the exhaust system for more low end torque. That truck is used to tow cars, trailers, boats, and even my off road truck. It also huals parts for the shop, as well as any trash the shop generates. So I wouldn't say it's a race truck. On the same Token. When some punk catches me in the right mood, I will take them light to light. Or if they try to cut me off on the freeway. Most of the PT drivers that I have seen trying to challenge people to a race are young punks who think they have something fast. When I get the new motor ready for the truck, Ill take her to the track then. I was going to put in my old .40 over 350, but I recently got a better engine to build for her. Charles > I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to > the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ...Of course, the Gremlin was a joke: > 1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8 ( http://tinyurl.com/28als ) A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the smallest engines available? Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") >A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really >hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the >smallest engines available? Overall length on a 72 Gremlin was 161 inches. A mid 80's Mustang was 181 inches. Not that much difference and those came with 5.0's all day long. I think we just remember them as tiny because everything else back then was so HUGE. Steve B. > >A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really > >hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > day long. I think we just remember them as tiny because everything > else back then was so HUGE. FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") >> >A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really >> >hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. That was my point Bill. You said that you "find those times really hard to believe". I was trying to point out the car wasn't really all that little and similarly powered cars have been offered in recent years. Steve B. >Bill Putney >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- > >> >A tiny car like the Gremlin with a 304 V-8? I find those times really > >> >hard to believe. Maybe they loaded those statistics by matching the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. > That was my point Bill. You said that you "find those times really > hard to believe". I was trying to point out the car wasn't really all > that little and similarly powered cars have been offered in recent > years. Got it - thanks! Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") >:|"Steve B." wrote: >:|> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >:| >:|FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. the Ford 5.0 is a 302 CI.. it works out to like 4.95l or something so they rounded it up. -Bret >:|Bill Putney >:|(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >:|http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >:|-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- >>:|> Overall length on a 72 Gremlin was 161 inches. A mid 80's Mustang >>:|> was 181 inches. Not that much difference and those came with >>:|> 5.0's all day long. I think we just remember them as tiny because >>:|> everything else back then was so HUGE. >>:| >>:|FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. You could also get a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder, turbo or nonturbo, an inline six and the 5.0 V8 of course in a mid 80's Mustang. > >:|FWIW, 5.0L = 305 CI. > > the Ford 5.0 is a 302 CI.. it works out to like 4.95l or something so > they rounded it up. Close enough - 1% diff. Thanks for the info. - it's good to be accurate and precise. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") >:|Bret Chase wrote: >:| [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >:|Close enough - 1% diff. Thanks for the info. - it's good to be accurate >:|and precise. Ford never made a 305... it's an insult to the 302 (or GM's 67-69 302) to call it such. -Bret > >:|Bret Chase wrote: > >:| [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Bret No one called it such. I simply did a conversion from the nominally stated 5.0 liters. I didn't realize it was an emotional number. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") > Overall length on a 72 Gremlin was 161 inches. A mid 80's Mustang was > 181 inches. Not that much difference and those came with 5.0's all > day long. I think we just remember them as tiny because everything > else back then was so HUGE. 20 inches is a big difference when it comes to vehicles. A 2003 Neon: 174.4 inches. An Intrepid? 203.7 inches. That's less than 30 inches overall length between the smallest and largest models Dodge made that year. A 2003 Caravan is 189.3 inches long (the Grand Caravan 200.5). So a Neon is less than 15 inches shorter than a Caravan, and the Intrepid is longer than a Grand Caravanl! Incidently, a 2WD RAM regular-cab pickup with an 8' box is 229.7 inches long. --Geoff >I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to >the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. First your comparing the option gt engine to the standard Gremlin engine. If you had the optional Gremlin 304 V8 engine in 1972 you came up 8.5 seconds.. 7.2 for todays comparable automatic GT Cruiser 'Course a 72 Gremlin listed out around $2500 which would be about $10,600 in todays dollars. The GT starts around what? 27k? So for only 2.5 times as much money I can go 1.3 seconds faster 0 to 60. You are right... They sure don't compare... Steve B. Where is this thread going comparing unitized frame and body junkers to junkers. Anyone with common sense would not buy a American Motors especially Pacer or the alternate Gremlin. Now here comes Chrysler with their mass produced concept vehicle PT (Plymouth Truck) Cruiser GT (Gran Touring?). I can't wait for quite a few $27K wrecks or junkers to appear in the auto grave yards as candidates for street rod parts for the REAL American made Prewar vehicles. > >I'm sure those were fine cars for their day, but they can't compare to > >the performance and versatility of new cars like the PT Cruiser GT. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Steve B. > I can't wait for quite a few $27K wrecks or junkers to appear in the auto > grave yards as candidates for street rod parts for the REAL American made > Prewar vehicles. I wonder if that's where this guy got his parts for this monster (used in the good sense of the word): http://tinyurl.com/2ggbx Note the driving position. Joe Does the picture at http://tinyurl.com/2ggbx depict a prewar vehicle? Ha, Ha Ha, Ha, It does give a good laugh being at MuscleCars.Net! I wonder if it has a 440 6 pack with a beefed up Torqueflite? > > I can't wait for quite a few $27K wrecks or junkers to appear in the auto > > grave yards as candidates for street rod parts for the REAL American made [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Joe > Where is this thread going comparing unitized frame and body junkers to > junkers. > > Anyone with common sense would not buy a American Motors especially Pacer or > the alternate Gremlin. Why not? From what I hear the old AMC blocks are real stout, able to handle massive amounts of turbocharging etc... nate Those Gremlins took a licking and kept on ticking.... yes I know that's from the old Timex comercials, but as ugly as those Gremlins were they were tough. >> Where is this thread going comparing unitized frame and body junkers to >> junkers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >nate ** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header. I bought a Gremlin for $300 in the middle 1980's to use as a beater during the winter. I drove the crap out of that car for four years replacing only brakes, ball joints, tires along with normal maintenance. It performed well to with the 258 six 2 bbl auto. JT > Those Gremlins took a licking and kept on ticking.... yes I know > that's from the old Timex comercials, but as ugly as those Gremlins [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and > including the underscore in my email reply header. - |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message