balthazar

The present ain't all it's cracked up to be.

That's funny: the bentley steering wheel reminds me mightily of the one in my F-150. No, I'm serious. ;)

Oh goodie; a precedent!! I can't wait to trot this ridiculous excuse out everytime someone bashes a GM product: 'Oh, it wasn't a real effort, it doesn't count! Wait until the 3rd generation, you'll see!' Sure: it's fine when toyota releases uncompetitive product, roll out the barrel of excuses, 'it's a dud because they wanted it to be a dud'. F'ing ponderous.

It's just not neccessary; including a negative slant in a piece about a car that's doing terrifically well in numerous ways and sticking that slant in the headline to boot. Why??? I don't believe the 300 & Charger are direct competitors, price-wise; why not a piece on how the Charger's 'on-lot' days are compared to one of it's competitors? Why always the need to throw at least one prominent negative into an otherwise positive article? Since the 300's inclusion is illogical and unneccesary, I can draw no other conclusion but: bias.

Alfa interior is close (it almost has enough HVA/C vents! :P), but details need to be improved: I assume the gigantic gap on the left edge of the pic is only the fuse panel door ajar, the center stack face panel appears dented along the right edge, the dead pedal is horrendously obtrusive and the stark assymetry of the center stack looks really bad w/ it being silver vs. the instrument hood's black. Radio controls are ridiculously low, too. It's not bad but nothing special and it wouldn't pull me into a Pontiac if I was on the fence. I only seen pics of the es330 and they've always looked pretty nice. I would like to see one in person; the LS 430 I sat in had a nicely-built interior but it somehow turned me off anyway. 'Gathered' leather always looks so... 1970s to me. ES looks much nicer than the LS and I could see that in a Buick...

Needless to say, ol Jer left a whole bunch of domestics out of his list of 'successful small cars'.

Nick- What about the tat IDs it as anything in particular? The fact that the leftmost rod is missing? Or that beemers are for puss!es? j/k :P

2 required in NJ. I hate it but I'm used to it.

My internal thermostat must be set high: I can't stand indoor temps around 80: stifling. Highest it's ever regularly been via the furnace is 72, recent years we have set daytime/occupied temps at 68. My wood stove has gotten the central portion of the house up to 84, but the extremities stay much cooler, so at least I can get away from it for some relief. When you have to pay the heating bill, you learn to put on warmer clothes. ;)

Wait- isn't the industry 'on-lot' average like 60 days?? If so, why the hell would this piece take a hot selling car, running (again: if so) near to half the industry average 'on-lot' time... selling to a younger demographic... with less incentives... at a higher price... and approach the story with "not selling like" and "taking dealers longer to sell"???? Oh; that's right, I forgot; the media is what pigs find on their hooves and say 'Ewwwh, what did I step in?"

Scroll down: http://www.northlight-tattoo.de/customs1.html You were saying??? :P

You would have to figure depreciation into any 'value' calculation, which needless to say is by far the worst on the newest vehicles.

"G6" really doesn't bother me at all. "GTO" is legend and most of the other Pontiacs have 'word' names... which IMO makes G6 something leaning towards.... special. A great or even very good car can 'make' it's name, even an alpha-numeric one. What would make me hate "G6" is if it was the opening shot in a lineup of 'G3', 'G4', 'G6', 'G8' madness (like M3, M5, M6, etc). Horrible.

Absolutely untrue!

Sixty8panther: >>"I always thought a hardtop's B pillar IS where the sedan's C-pillar is located. I'm honsetly asking? Is it proper terminology to refer to a Vista Roof as having an A and C pillar but no B? ...my Camaro also has A and C pillars but the B is considered non-existant, right?"<< You got it: a hardtop (2 or 4-dr) and your 'maro has an A- and C-pillar, but no B. Croc- hardtops really seem to confuse you for some reason. The Cadillac in Sixty8's sig is a hardtop. You are seeing the chrome-framed glass, but rest assured it rolls down with the window. ;) Sure: there's a hinge pillar, or the rear doors would probably fall out... but this is NOT what would be called a B-pillar because it does not extend into the greenhouse. But Cadillac itself makes this issue easy; they didn't offer a 4-dr sedan in '61.

Oh 97, don't you know the LS7 is a rough, outdated, unreliable, anti-rev, consumer-rejected POS because it has an IBC?? You ninny.

Sixty8- Cad in your sig has no B-pillar: it's a hardtop. That's merely framed glass.

Then it would be nearly as dissappointing as a vw bentley, rolls or maybach. The Sixteen's all aluminum engine, with hidden wiring and no plastic shrouds is gorgeous... and where this segment should be.

GM1- I know you said "similar", just wanted to point out that Chevy, Pontiac, Olds & Buick shared the majority of their palettes, but Cadillac used their own exclusive colors. They also offered a notably greater quantity.

Buick did use the same '61 xx39 hardtop greenhouse. In fact they also offered the same 4-window/ wrap backlight in a xx69 4-dr sedan body in the LeSabre line. Undoubtedly Oldsmobile followed suit.

Holy sh!t; this is another new one on me! I love all the compartments- I always thought the underseat area was under-utilized. Wild wild vehicle. This beast must have a XP-number....

I'm with ocn; the traction bars are a distraction. Otherwise, it's got all the goodies. Are the rims indeed 20"s?- they look smaller: 18"s?? But I agree with you Sixty8: intermediates & musclecars shouldn't wear over 17"s (full-sizers shouldn't wear over 16"s). Screws up the relative proportions too much.

If I may: the front & rear are correct: 1961. The roofline was not common: it's the 4-window hardtop sedan, 4700 units built as a Series 62 (vs. 26K as a S62 6-window), 4847 built as a Sedan deVille (vs. 26K again as a SdV 6-window). Body style is xx39. This style is the '61 version of the 'flattop' 4-dr hardtops of '59-60. For '62 the xx39's wrap rear window was redesigned in favor of a more formal backlight. I agree that it does look unfamiliar, even to me. Then again I always glossed over the 4-drs in general...

You folks are a hellva lot more liberal in your definition of fins than I am, and I love & live them. You should be able to put at least a finger (and I much prefer a fist!) within the plane of the edge of the fender and the deck or rear fascia. This would mean the '71 Harley posted would technically be a fin (tho I would never call it that- see below) but the CTS isn't even hinting. Yes, I've seen them up close. I go further: I want a backcut somewhere, a projection outward from the body. To me (and the historian at large), the Cadillac fin years are without question: 1948-1964 inclusive. Nothing after '64 had either a backcut or a projection away from the body (the '71 quarter's trailing edges are inline with the body envelope). Again- this last paragraph is my definition (and most of the rest of the car hobbyist's). 1964: a 'backcut' and therefore a "fin": 1966: no 'backcut', no "fin":

That engine bay shot above is why bentleys & maybach fail so miserably in my eye. Multi-hundred grand autos should not have dumpster-loads of plastic underhood & in the interior like they do; the same cheap crap a $15K car has, only a 'nicer grained' crap. Plastic is the root of cheapness- synthetic ready-mix chemicals injection-molded into shape. No craftsmanship, no fabrication, no elements, just... plastic. Whoopie-sh!t. Would you buy a car made by Revell or MonoGram? Oh, wait, we all do. It's a primary reason I'm not brainwashed that modern autos are the Greatest Thing Ever when a '64 Pontiac has a nicer interior than a $250K Bentley.....