balthazar

Hudson>>" balth: As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. I do like some aspects of the designs of the Mustang/Challenger/Camaro trio, but they started with an old car (1969-70 Mustang, 1970 Challenger, 1967-69 Camaro) and updated it. It's not new...it's modernized. It's retro."<< Well, this is basically fact, so it's not arguable. But I see nothing 'wrong' with that whatsoever. A modernized vintage design- sure. And? Should I flat reject a car so awe-striking because I know one similar to it with the same name was in the showroom 35 years ago??? Who does that apease? >>"Now...had they taken those designs as a starting point, and designed each progressive generation to follow...and arrived at the 2005-2008-2009 car and I wouldn't have complained. But what they did was take the old car and find a way to give it modern proportions.""< Again- I see absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Why should having or NOT having interrum '69-esque models between 1969 and 2009 have any bearing on your opinion of the 2009? Unless you are buying a complete set of all years of Camaro for your public display somewhere?........ To me it smells like justification of brands that have pumped out unchanging designs for 20 years or more; they're always somehow 'unique and fresh' when in fact they are stale and reguritated. Look to bmw, rolls, volvo, saab as a starter group of this very practice. mercedes managed to create new looks over the same period, why could the others? >>"Each of these cars provides the mental image to make the connection between the modern car and the historic car on which it's based."<< But the "non-car" person -the average consumer in general- has little idea and even less evidence of this. The cars they are based upon are long gone in day-to-day traffic. We (as enthusuists and all-around car nuts) can't escape the association because we will be able to identify a '69 Camro when we are 101 yrs old and drooling. But that's immaterial to 80% of the consumer pool today. >>"The Chrysler people pointed out the differences between the Challenger concept and the original, but it's not enough to reduce the overhangs and say it's an original design...it's not. Neither is the Camaro nor is the Mustang."<< No, it's not 'original'. Why should anyone give a flying rat's ass? It IS striking and refreshing and aspirational and soul-stirring. It's quite good on top of that. No one is waxing orgasmic over the GTO design, I don't have to tell you. Is that 'better' or 'original' enough to suit you then? Legions of car nuts would respond 'Knock yourself out' as they run to the line for the Camaro.

I wonder when GM switched to a 5-stop tilt? My '64 has (first year) a 7-position tilt. Guess what- when I drove it I never tilted it and I never wished to tilt the wheel in my other '64 (which didn't have tilt). Seems another feature that's more 'look at this' than 'this is handy'. "Can't get comfortable"- what bullsh!t. Of course you are dead-right, cmattson- the complaints are getting increasingly minor (tho they're seldom worded with anything less than triple the necessary emphasis). It'll be something, it'll always be something, because the domestic makes overall can NEVER be even as good as the foreign makes {waits for someone to bring up the Corvette}. Lingering boot-strap colonial-rebellion inferiority baggage, dont'cha know. It'll probably move to individual component design- like the Fisher-Price Toddler-Friendly exterior door handles most eruopean cars seem to favor, you know: the ones with the giant factory dents behind them. Gotta be able to open yer door with yer big fuzzy mittens on! I can forsee it dwindling down to criticising the knurling pattern on radio knobs in the near future.

He was addressing dissenting opinions to his own, unless the 'credit due' line is completely unrelated to the continuity here. 'top-notch' was the very next line. I truely do feel the exterior is unrefined: the grille shell is ponderously heavy, esp next to the flat, featureless, bezel-less headlights that looked 'tucked behind' the shell. The front bumper's flattened ends are awkward, the nose is stubby, the upswing in the beltline just dead-ends, thick C-pillar makes for a big blind spot, wheels could've come off a corolla. Where's the 8-foot box? And is that a chrome rear bumper?

You want credit for an opinion?? Here's another, equally 'correct' opinion: exterior is overdone and tacky AND derivative. Design is neither fluid or cohesive. Blind toyota loyalists will overlook that. Of course.

Widely-accepted actual output of the RA IV.

Hudson= >>"This is the problem. We've been given the same-ol'-same-ol' for so long that designers have gotten lazy. When was the last time you saw a truly distinctive design come out of the Big3?"<< 'Distinctive'; as in different & unique? Most of the ones mentioned in this thread. Mustang comes right to the forefront- it's completely distinctive on the road. BTW- when's the last time a truely distinctive design came out of any of the foreign brands? >>"Why can't the Big3 designers come out with a modern equivalent of the Lincoln-Zephyr/Continental, 1949 Cadillac, 1953 Corvette, Continental Mark II, Avanti, 1963 Corvette, Mustang, etc."<< The answer here is simple- too many constraints: aerodynamics, minimized dimensions, shared platforms & parts... these things and more all must be dealt with today but rarely were for the aforementioned. The silhouette of the family car has not changed in 25 years- design progress has ground to a halt. I too would love to see a unique icon such as those you mentioned (I was looking at a Mark II yesterday- so gorgeous), but there are just too many mitigating factors. >>"Something that non-car people will talk about. "Did you see the XXX on that TV commercial? It was beautiful! I'm heading down to the YYY dealer to take a look.""<< Hm-mmm, heard that very comment from a non-car person about the...... Mustang. See, the car it's loosely based on hasn't been in the showroom in like thirty-five years, so the non-car people really have no reference to the '69. Just because enthusiasts happen to know about it really means little in the consumer market. >>"Are vehicles really designed by committee? Why hasn't anyone stepped up to take the place of Virgil Exner, Raymond Loewy, Harley Earl, and Bob Gregorie?"<< Yes, they are. I believe the instances of 1 person designing an entire exterior are long gone, tho there may be some exceptions. It's not right. However, these new designs... these "retro" designs are striking, they are distinctive, they are fresh. Under most criteria, they're also good. Who cares if some distant past variant has similar cues- you can't buy a brand new '69 anything anymore. Just because a design is different, doesn't make it 'good'. What we want is 'good' design. Because 'distinct' for the sake of being distinct sometimes results in this: Bob Gregorie = genius.

No; that's typical.

>>"Who in their right mind would buy this thing over a CTS?"<< Who? Why the tens of thousand of car shoppers who scamper around the dealer lots like rabid squirrels, tape measures in hand. European 'trees' cannot accept a 'nut' more than 188" long. Cars are taxed in europe based on overall length, don'tcha know. The 190" CTS CANNOT POSSIBLY 'compete' with cars up to 8 inches shorter in length- all cars in 'competition' with each other have to fall within a specific 4" range of overall dimension- you know that! There's a progressive scale: the shorter the car, the better it is. Some european 3-series owners have been known to remove both front & rear bumpers to get an even more competitive car!

This is truely getting ridiculous. What percentage of first-year owners pre-order vs. buy after 'opening day'? Is this percentage consistant model-to-model, make-to-make, year-to-year, country-to-country? How often is it reported? When did the BLS become available for pre-order? What percentage of pre-orders get canceled? Enough twiddledicking around: we will see how well the car is selling 6 months after it officially goes on sale. Yes, but what is the emotion behind that tear? There's no joy in the news for me, I can tell you that.

OK, but where did they 'learn' this? No one is born with these convictions... and we've all read allegations (even here) that writers are 'experts'. Frankly I've always found consumeristic conformity repulsive and unappealing.

I agree: better lubricants, cleaner burns, lower overall RPM, lighter reciprocating assemblies all result in less wear/ increased longevity.

>>"That old muscle car era had its downside. When you put in bigger engines, other parts--such as radiators and frames--get bigger and heavier. The overall costs go up, and some of the lightness and simple fun can get lost. "<< Yeah: that 175-HP I-6 Tempest sure had an S-load of 'lightness & simple fun' that was lost when the 425-HP GTO Judge came along. What a stupid move to give a car more power & flash! That'll never work...

MaxxCab: I did like this one from the front. Beefy. Rampage looks sportier in profile, but I at least cannot get away from the image the name Rampage conjures up: FWD econo-pickup. Agree about blacking-out the lil quarter-window 'pillar'.

>>"...hope they start to sell better "<< How can they improve their sales when they have not even reached a dealer's lot yet????

Wow, this guy hit the nail with a sledgehammer. Most of everything I've said more than once on these boards; auto 'journalists' "opinions" are dictated by editorial & corporate agendas, thus making the bulk of them irrelevant. Once the groundwork for a readership is in place, there's far too much at stake to distrupt that, therefore --regardless of the catalyst-- an 'opinion bias' is the inescapable result.

It is -of course- NOT an organized conspiracy. But as you stated: 'it sells copy because the formerly largest corporation on the planet is on the ropes'. People enjoy reading about misfortune- likely it makes them feel better about themselves. It has been documented that collectively- people are less satisfied with their lives with each passing generation since roughly the mid '60s. 'Disenchanted' it is sometimes termed. What is the possible cause? How could Raisin Bran have "More Raisins!!" for the 15th time- shouldn't it be 100% raisins by now?? Ask anyone- a computer is obsolete after 12 months- how could the most sophisticated machine (aside from a motor vehicle) be so continually and thoroughly eclipsed?? Look at car design; check a silhouette of a 1900, 1910, '20, '30, '40, '50, '60, '70, '80 car. Then look at a '90, 2000 and a '06. Progress has slowed dramatically yet all we are subjected to is "NEW and IMPROVED!!". It has become a self-fufilling, self-sustaining prophecy. We came so far & so fast thru most of the 20th Century... but we're on the downside of the industrial & manufacturing progress bell curve now. Only medicine/surgery & programming seem to still be running with a full head of steam (<-- note anachronistic pun). On the other hand: there is a tremendous glut in the media industry: there used to be 3 sources- TV (maybe 5 news stations?), print and radio. Now there is TV, cable TV, satellite TV, mobile phone TV, supermarket checkout line TV, 9,000 online news sources, many many more magazines & new-centric radio shows, and the latest: blogs. And (except for the blogger-) all these businesses require tremendous overhead/ operational costs. All this means the pressure is crushingly intense. How can so many more news sources with so much more at stake report on less news in an instantaneous-information age? If you aren't making it up, you have to outshout the competition. You sensationalize it. The automotive journalism industry is heavily populated with stereotypes & cliche's as the writers attempt to familiarize themselves to you to get your attention. And in that 'misfortune' is today's dangling carrot, all sorts of angles are cooked and re-cooked, and it does work as far as circulation goes. But is it even-handed... or overblown? IMO and experience, it is way out of proportion to reality and it is patently unfair. I related this before; my 'eye-opener': When I was about 14, I was reading the local paper. Prominently on the front page was an article about a GM recall of approx 375K units for a non-safety issue. On page 8 in a little sidebar piece of the same section was an item about the recall of 1 million plus VWs for something that could result in an engine fire. I was like 'WTF??!?' even at that age. Most everything I've read since has only supported that 'agenda' or psychosis or whatever it may actually be, and I am approaching the inversion of that age. It is real and it is pervasive. It's not a conspiracy but it is a phenomenon. What will it take to change the status quo? Hopefully the bloggers & 'boarders can play a part in leveling the field a bit and shade some eyes from the bright blinding glare of marketing and 'journalism'. Before it's too late to right the wrong. Sorry to ramble on so long...

The Hemi-powered, one-off '55 Falcon was a "Chrysler". 1969.

And not one of these writer's will ever let the Vega or Cimarrron or any of the other long-gone "mediocre' products be forgotten.Not one writer will cease to mention the historical high marketshare of GM from the 1960s, meanwhile never mentioning how out-of-touch the foreign makes were with the U.S. market in the 1960s. Nor will one of these writers ever admit that no one at GM intends any singular move/ change/ new policy to be the single saving grace for the Corporation. Yet all I have read during this whole long sh!tstorm of bad press is 'Move X won't save the company', as if GM is clinically dead on the operating table already and a miracle is needed. NO ONE HAS EVER STATED OR BELIEVED ANY ONE MOVE WOULD TURN THINGS AROUND. Why for God's sake can we never escape that towering 'DUH!' in the press??? On & on about how GM was concentrating on trucks, but no concurrent mention of how the truck market was rising every year to eclipse that of the car market... just a blind assumption that cars are somehow more pertinent or preferred over trucks (obviously not true). Then the truck market peaks and declines a bit..... but nary a mention of that in a SINGLE review of any new foreign truck or new U.S. foreign truck plant. >>"He may not, deep down, even believe it himself."<< This is NOT reporting, it is witch-hunting. Garbage, damaging garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the Citation. enzl- open your eyes and stop sucking down the rhetoric! Way too much partiality in 'journalism' today.

Truck looks tough & elegant at the same time- nice design. Curious: what's the "M" in the "PRNDM" shift quadrant signify?

It has always been interesting to me that so many Jews -esp those of position, speaking publically- continually dismiss the OTHER 5 MILLION SOULS WHO WERE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST. Did I say "interesting"? I meant despicable. Race & religion will NEVER be a non-issue until we as a species are all dust.

>>"Why are Detriot Diesel engines known as Detriots, instead of GM or Chevrolet engines as they really are?"<< I am not particularly familiar with DD, but I don't see why you would state the engines are 'really Chevy or GMC'. DD was a separate division of GM, which would mean the engines were no more 'Chevy' than they were 'Cadillac'. Even if they were actually used in Chevy/GMCs only (GMC offered diesels beginning in '38, Chevy didn't offer any until '52)- they were not manufactured by either division. Autonomy, a great thing. DD was created by GM in 1938. I believe even from the beginning, the engines were used in a wide variety of non-GM marques all over the world. I think that is the root of the reason in it's naming; to 'allow' unrestricted market access, but that's only a guess. This is not at all to say that a more 'GM' name would cause any problems, but GM had only been the #1 automaker for 7 years at that point and there was a great deal more competition and many more established HD/truck motor manufacturers already in place. BTW- DD did indeed have a 2-cycle 3-cylinder diesel, tho '3V53' could not have been it's designation; this was in the '30s and it would've been of an inline configuration. Come to think of it, a V-3 has to be pretty much impossible from a balance standpoint. (awaiting contradiction...)

Nissan? Part of the "American Auto Industry"? In what solar system? More baby seal clubbing from the media.

Why not? The PT model-line just about outsells the saab brand worldwide. saab could use that kind of volume to realize a profit for a change. Get the little bell over the showroom door a-jinglin'. Maybe a retro coupe loosely based off the late-50s saab; you know- the one all hunched over like a bug taking a crap. I see where subaru got their 'new' corporate face from...

Death is coming...

No- this was in the '60s- to figure out how to make real power, undoubtedly. And yes- I'm sure mercedes has learned much about building automatics from GM- many have tried to better them in the past and failed.