balthazar

I am rather well versed in domestic automotive history, but not so well in vehicles never imported here. Frankly, most foreign makes in general fail to interest me. Leyland was too young for the Civil War (b; 1843), and it's interesting to note Lincoln was formed in order to build aircraft engines for WWI. That said, he indeed was a great man, & industrial pioneer. I am searching for a biography of his life- not sure one exists.

I know what it is...

Sixteen cylinders of Cadillac power, baby.

It's alright if you enjoy horrifically dangerous transportation. Too wide of a rim for a given tire puts a lot of strain on the bead & the sealing of the tire, esp in cornering. Real innovative of those europeans to reintroduce the blowout as a 'in thing' again.

Spoiler is actually nicely styled, but it is oversized and visually uneccesary. But so are the rocker moldings. The functional fender air extractors look great, however.

If you understand the nature of the terms 'small' & 'big', you know that the answer to your question is: they 'came out' the same year. Ford had a very small flathead V-8 that was called the "60" because it had 60 HP. It was only 136 CI and came out for '36. This was in addition to the 221 flathead that appeared for '32. I've seen the 60 out of a car and I know my own 239 flathead V-8 and the size difference is unmistakable. Not sure where the 221 fits in tho. The 239 came out in Mercs for '39, so at least as early as 1939 Ford had a small & big block, or it may be '36 if the 221 is notably bigger. However, I have not heard the terms 'small block' and 'big block' applied to Ford motors from this era ('30s and '40s). Post-war, Ford was running their 292 & 352 V-8s when they brought out the 430 for '58. I am certain that this is a bigger block than the 292/352. Across town, Plymouth did not get a big block offering until they gained the corporate 413 for 1961.

Rear overhang looks perfectly normal to me... in fact everything current looks too damned short.

Nope; that's not it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...rs/1267876.html

I saw an insight a few weeks ago driving by on U.S. Rt 1. Both the vanity plate and the banner stretched by strings across the door read "66 MPG". Was probably a lot more relevant when gas was over $3 gal instead of the $1.90-and-falling-daily rate it's at now. Whatever butters his buscuits, I guess.

I cannot see in the least how HUD would be considered 'gimmicky' in actuality. Oh I forgot; because it's in a GM vehicle. My bad.

God-awful: grille, slots, grille, askew logos, grille and rims. And grille. Not to mention the base car they started with. Grille remind anyone else of this?:

Gee, thought I'd get a bunch more guesses, tho I know I skew vintage too much for most here. Well, rather than repost the pics with their IDs and not wanting to just post a list, I have modified my opening post with the answers. Hope some were eye-openers for those that checked this thread (not many would expect a 160-MPH speedo in a Stude (tho Walt might!)).

Well, at least some of you guys are awake. Thanks Sixty8.

It's not so much the lower ("skeg") fins, it's the detailing. The taillight bezels are just pasted onto the rear fascia, not melded to the sheetmetal at all. There is no trim along the decklid and the unqiue rear grillwork is gone. I don't like the manner that the fins terminate at the deck either. Up front: in-line headlights & grille nearly always is the hallmark of a cheaper-priced make, ala Chevy or Plymouth. '62 fixed a lot of these gripes, but IMO the '61-62 aren't 'really' Cadillacs. There's a world of difference between '60 and '61. I would love to own a '60 (almost did once) but would never consider a '61-62. Skip forward to '64 and I'm back as a fan again. Just my opinion.

Chevy's small block in '58 was the 283 (an enlarged 265).

Typical move for a japanese make- increase displacement to increase HP.

I could not care less about oprah. She's ultra-annoying.

I have yet to encounter a "negative, trashy, cheap" image associated with Pontiac, so I cannot agree in the least that that is "reality". And I think the only people who think saab is "premium" are those employed in their marketing department. Their image may not be negative (again- I don't believe Pontiac's is either), but it's not all that great and it's not progressive, and that's at strict odds with the premium segment. >>"GME needs SAAB more than GMNA needs it"<< Fine, then pull saab stores from the U.S.. Or sell off saab to a european corporation. It'll never pay off.

Nothing; there was only 1 block in '55. There is no 'small block' in '55 because...... there's no 'big block'. It's merely popular reference that terms the '55 a "small block". After all, it was all by it's lonesome for only 3 years, then it's had a big block brother for the next what- 48 years?? The term sticks. First off, I would be surprised if the questionaire got the '1958' answer right- there is a surprisingly great deal of confusion over how the 'small block', 'big block' terms came about. I would just about guarantee you it'll say the answer is "1955 Bel Air. But in fact 1958 is factually correct. And as far as I can tell from my reference, the 348 could've been ordered in any '58 model, which would be the Del Ray, Biscayne, Bel Air or Impala.

Bullsh!t. saab has an image- the car of choice for pot-smoking college professors in their 50s. A "quirky" brand that dare not break away from such esoteric trivalties as a key in the console or all 22 worldwide saab loyalists wail & moan. saab can only mean what it's meant for the last 25 years: FWD 4-banger hatchbacks with particularly upright windshields. Sure they have 1 or 2 other models outside that now... and they are verbally trounced by the 'faithful' and one of those's days are numbered. It's these few "iconic" features that hamstring the development & growth of the brand... the few things that mark what is otherwise a merely somewhat competitive product in a ragingly ferocious segment. Pontiac has a long history of building performance cars for the enthusiast, moreso than saab by a long shot. Their path has been a bit muddled of recent times, tho the GTO & Sostice (& the G6 in a lesser capacity, IMO) are right back on track. At least Pontiac is not saddled with the albatross of -say- using an Indian Head emblem and 3 2bbl carbs or encuring the rejection of the faithful.

The A-pillar & windshield I do believe are shared with the Toro, and they supposedly both are the same bodies (E??), but they share nothing else visual. Perhaps the firewall/cowl area, but the different frames are going to dictate unique floorpans- another likely shared area. These are some of the most different "same" bodies ever....

Interesting question. The term "small block" is relative: there must co-exist a 'big block' within the same division for there to be a smaller block. Chevy's '55 265 had no big block brother until '58 and the 348. Obviously, the same size block existed earlier: 1955, but it was not legitimately able to be referred to as a small block until '58. So for Chevy- the first small block is 1958. [/Marissa_Tomey] Olds & Buick didn't get small blocks until the '60s (the 330 and the 215 respectively) and Pontiac & Cadillac didn't 'do' small blocks.

I know what you're saying, Fly, but there's more to what Plymouth was than merely their cars from the last 10 years. If we can lament Hudson & Studebaker for what they built in the '40, '50s and '60s, why can't we likewise lament Plymouth for the same era? You know that's where I'm coming from. Plymouth's "cheapness" really didn't show until at least the '80s. Many sister Dodge/Plymouth models really were extremely similar and the differences were minor. But before that there were a lot of rock solid & interesting vehicles. But ChryCo pulled their trucks after '80 (except for the POS rebadged mitsu), leaving only the vans... and once the performance models were gone by the late '70s, the writing was on the wall. Better dead than making completely insulting cars, yes, but better alive with the chance of a rebirth than dead with no chance at all. Sixty8 nailed it: the PT Cruiser should've been a Plymouth (it was as a concept) and by now there could've been an LX Fury sport sedan and an upcoming 'cuda coupe. Instead, the bottom line for me: one more American nameplate gone, which is a federal offense and a capital crime in the automotive arena, IMO.

You could have a 1903 Buick engine in your eventual Buick and it'd still be valve-in-head. BTW- the signs are cool, but for 4 grand I'd want one a bit more authentic and also... weathered. These look a little too smooth and polished for me.