balthazar

I felt my Sierra was a lil bouncy (esp after years in a 2500HD), but I do believe the suspension/springs ‘settle’ with some use, and now the Sierra feels very good/better than whem brand new (2200 miles now). What engine ?

- - - - - There’s no ‘doesn’t count’ here; the company existed and was functioning, even if they only had 1 extremely-limited-appeal rebaged model.

>> “How is Tesla supposed to compete with only one coupe when other brands have dozens of different models?!?” << ~ 2008 internet troll

Tesla started in 2003- 18 years ago. Do you think a person walks into BMW dealership and says 'Show me an X1, an X7, and every SUV in between; I have utterly no idea what I want and I can afford any of them"??

^ Incredibly underwhelming. I see these all the time by me. Wonder why they didn't try anything aspirational or remotely dynamic for the exterior.

1976 > 1996 = 20 years. There’s a TON more going on than merely FI there. I get your point, and it’s fun to play ‘what if’, but it’s far from just GM that walked this path. In ‘76, how many brands besides VW and Cadillac had FI?

GMC does a nice job of that, too.

I thought 1 silly comment deserved another. ? Yes; times actually change. Some things get much better, others get much worse. Imagine having to got thru 3 or 4 steps on a computer screen to turn on your wipers... instead of turning a simple knob. ?

Chrysler's was electronic but yes; problematic. They were also expensive options. And circular steering wheels - why use such ancient tech so long?? ? - - - - - '58 Chrysler FI set-up, prolly worth at least 10 grand: '58 Belvedere wearing 'fuel injection' script, supposedly only 1 of 2 Belvi's built with that option :

And I had a year off; Cadillac started offering FI in '76 on the 500. 215 HP / 400 TRQ. - - - - - From what little I've read, the 368 was a good engine, and even those who disabled the V8-6-4 also had a good-running, reliable V8. Just: only 150 HP / 265 TRQ as a 4bbl.

"Around"; sort of. Optional on '58 Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto & Chrysler, then gone. Optional at Pontiac '57-58, then gone. Optional at Chevy '57-65, then gone. Cadillac Seville had FI standard from '76-on. 425 had it optional in '78-79, but it was dropped on the 368 in '80 (came back in '81-on). Big span of years... closer to 2 decades in most cases, without FI. - - - - - RE power figures; yes- the 425 had the same HP and TRQ as the FI 350. FI on the 425 raised the HP from 180 to 215, but TRQ rating stayed the same. In an ideal arch, Cadillac should have kept development dollars trained on FI, kept the 368 in the RWD cars and turned the output number in the other direction. Instead they panicked in the V8-6-4 spotlight and dropped the 368 / rushed the 4100. This was a move to raise output in light of falling power numbers on the 472. In operational reality, it made no difference to owners (472<>500). V8-6-4 was '81. Seville actually had the 350 diesel standard starting in '80, a terrible move (105 HP / 205 TRQ).

Put a roof on it, change the color, drop it back 10 years and make it a Chrysler. ?

You well know it takes time (esp traditionally) to change course / bring out brand new architecture. Cadillac started evaluating a smaller Cadillac in 1970. In the spring of '72, Cadillac dealers were polled at 3.5:1 in favor of a smaller model, and in '73, actual development work began. But there was still strong legacy customers who wanted real full-size cars; they had to balance their demographic). I think Cadillac executed very well this immediate period, the home run of the Seville, and the downsizing of the '77 senior cars (body & engine), and of course the 3rd home run with the '79 Eldorado. Yes, I think a more expanded application of FI would've been a plus, tho the early Sevilles did have some issues with there FI system that perhaps the limited usage (Seville / Eldorado initially) were well-paced.

Are there parking brake disc calipers?

Eldorado was convertible-only from '61-66. The one above has aftermarket rub strips down the sides- I always like the Eldos because they don't have that (the lower stainless is factory). Very rare in these years- only 2,250 built in '66. You can't believe how beautiful the ride is in this era Cadillac; I slipped into a cloud dimension taking this for a spin a few years ago:

Not impressed with the Lucid onside or out.

OEMs reduced displacements trying to increase MPG and had no contingency plan to maintain power levels. It’s also the general state of the industry/tech; this is when a ferrari did a high 15 sec 1/4 mile.

301 & 265 are low-deck motors, strangulated by design and walled-off from sharing far better engineered factory parts that would waken them up a little. Basically nothing interchanges between the shunned 265/301 and all other PMD V8s. 350 is great, these 2... no. I am aware you gravitate towards 'lil chuggers' - serviceable engines that exhibit good longevity & reliability. Just note you can get those characteristics in something with more than 135 HP ('77 Safari 2bbl 301 growing up).

Porsche is a high performance brand. Mercedes is a mass-volume mainstream brand (with a couple of high-priced models).

The 265 is a garbage motor.

How does this even happen?

Proper shout out to Tri-tones!

Those 'halving the battery costs' aren't going to be passed on to the consumer. OK, so nobody needs to stuff 4-bangers in upper-level cars to "sell more". Thank God that strawman is dead & buried! ?

C7 Z06 put down a 7:10 lap time, that's faster than a Porsche GT3. Corvette test drivers are saying they expect the C8 to be 12-14 secs quicker than that, or a 6:56. Last officiated Corvette run was FIVE model years ago (the 7:13). But what fascinates me is smk's persistent yet erroneous view that Nurburing is a race track. It's not; it's a test track. They don't line up an Aventador & a GT2 and race them there... so how do 10 secs on a 7 min lap translate to... anything?? Question; is this a 'supercar' (it ran a 7:44 in 2019) ?

??