balthazar

C'mon Brian- this will be the only way you can get the Centurion into your garage... ;)

Bel Air: I tend to agree with Sixty8 here: it's has some nice body lines but the details come off as watered down. Overall it does not stir me. Forty-Nine: One gorgeous car! I would buy this baby in a heartbeat, and I know I have never uttered that statement on these boards in regards to any modern vehicle. Beautiful body envelope, clean classic & strong detailing, A+ stance & slick rims. Interior is great too: fresh & simple. Why can't mercedes or bmw craft something this inspiring & drop-dead gorgeous? More importantly- why can't Ford build this (as a Lincoln even)?? The Most Beautiful Ford Ever in my book. Super 8: Tho the wrap windshield gets me all gooshy, the bulk of the exterior is brutish & crude without being cool. I want to like but... there's no way. Interior does have some interesting, funky elements tho- worth saving.

God- loads of Pontiacs could top 120. Factory-built Pontiac-engined Super Duty cars --completely production based- topped 150 with ease, maybe even surpassed 160. Yes- except for tires these would be street-legal road cars. Yes they were sold & delivered thru Pontiac dealers across the country (want a list?). Factory 421HOs were solidly in the 130s. A '73-74 T/A or Formula SD455 should likewise be in the 130s. But I would tend to agree (without having checked it) that the '89 Turbo T/A was the fastest: it was the first Indy pace car that got zero mods in order to pace the 500 (beyond lighting equipment). Problem with top speed focus is that there's little space (ironically: in such a huge country) to run wide open beyond Bonneville (more irony) or the Nevada Silver State Classic.

I forgot this question was hanging out. Here's the answer, but no one throw rocks or anything. Like I alluded- the answer hinges on a technicality. The driver of a '60 or '61 Buick full-size model could not see the speedometer, nor could any of his passengers. Yet he was easily able to know how fast he was going. This was accomplished via MirrorMagic and MirrorMatic (respectively), where the driver saw only the reflection of the speedo in an adjustable mirror. The only way to see the actual speedo is to look at a sideways angle thru the windshield from the outside. And yes- that naturally means the actual speedo was backwards, imagewise. Not the easiest to see in this pic, but the stainless steel edging of the mirror is visible inside the wheel's diameter. A thumbwheel adjusts the mirror's degree of tilt. It's a neat but needless system (I've sat in a number of these cars), one of the countless crafty, attention-to-detail touches sadly lacking in modern cars.

I agree with most of what you said, except for R&T. I seldom pick it up because they traditionally never review anything appealing (to me), and when they do it's often with some of the greatest bias I've ever read. Perhaps that has changed in recent years. It sits far from 'timeless standard' in my experience but perhaps I need to give R&T another shot.

Don't forget all 3 at once! ^_^

Let's just say that... oh; I dunno.... are. ;)

Absolutely. Last post: You have your terms confused. Objective: There is a noticable flaw, I pointed it out. Subjective: There is a noticable flaw, you say it 'may or may not be flawed'.

Except this is not a matter of opinion unless you are blind. And tho you may not be literally so, it sure seems figurative blindness is running rampant here. Knock yourself out.

Reliability is objective: car breaks/costs money to fix) Interiors are completely subjective, and thusly it's only "years behind" based on individual opinion, not facts. Some will prefer one over the other, simple as that.

I dunno: the convertible was "dying" at one point and theres more than in the last few decades at this point. Station wagons were "dying" and now they're popping up like prairie dogs. Performance cars were "dying" and look at that sector now. The big SUV is at the historic sales high of it's existance, some drop is bound to happen at some point, but they'll never go away. "Dying"; no. 'Adjusting to the market'- yes. Is the career of the typical auto 'journalist' "dying"? Let's hope the hell so.

Because I have eyes. It's a fat gap and I can see it. Was there something else? It's no theory- it's reality. Can't you see it? Multiple pics?? Of the same 3" gauge? For what purpose- to hopefully catch an angle where the gap doesn't show? "Not convinced"? This is ridiculous. I can allow shoddy design & assembly work on a preproduction car- that's understandable to a degree. But the fact that this picture was released by toyota sure doesn't instill much faith in their quality control to the non-loyalists.

Just as reprehensible as 'defending everything made by GM' is one who whitewashes everything made by GM.

Isn't toyota corp comprised of toyota, lexus, scion & diahatsu? Isn't that somewhere around 4 right there?

The pic could've been fixed in PhotoShop in 3 minutes. Why wasn't it?

I had a really nice unwarped '59 Invicta 2-dr hardtop promo, but it sat in a box on the closet shelf for 5 years so I sold it. I prefer to put the money into the steel one instead. ;)

The washers surely do not dispense a showerhead-volume of liquid, but likely a fine mist- the volume which would be insufficient to cause anyone burns. And if someone is going to sprawl across your Cadillac's windshield, they deserve what they get (how are people supposed to get sprayed by the washers??)

Yeah- I'll give Barris that (attitude). Design-sense, tho: not usually. My favorite Barris job off the top of my head is the original Batmobile. Moltar- no '59 Buick kits issued since the '60s- very rare today. I just learned from another board that Buick built 2 running XP-75s (plus a clay/fiberglas full-size model), the 2nd of the 2 runners is documented as still being retained by BMD as of the summer of '67. It was initially slated for production. It's likely the design's engine set-back & shortened chassis were reasons enough for it to have been cancelled. Un-frickin-fortunately.

You are absolutely unequivocally out of your everlovin' mind.

I hit a deer broadside doing 100 MPH once. Did a bit more damage than what happened to your ride. When I hear deer/car stories, I always think of one a friend told me he witnessed: a guy hit a deer with his truck, stopped, jumped out with a big hunting knife, slit it's throat & threw it into the back and drove off. Wouldn't it be great if deer were some sort of benefitial contribution to our lives instead of just looking sweet & harmless?

So in other words, you find him to give a great or at least sufficient amount of information... ON THE CAR, eh? Interesting. And I did not say I've only read 6 reviews...

{just read a half dozen of his reviews:} You know what; you're right. He gives even less accurate & less information than the 'sheep journalists' I was lumping him in with. Alternative viewpoints are well & good as long as they provide some food for thought. Unfortunately for the uninitiated, Clarkson leaves those interested in learning about cars... famished.

My current sig is labeled below: the '58 XP-75, a Buick 2-passenger job predicting the styling of the '59s publically a year early. 2 built (one a pusher, one fully functional), but not widely shown. If I had money falling out my ass I'd promptly comission the reconstruction of it. Needs diagonal headlights, tho. ;) I daydream often about finding a whole laundry list of one-offs in a barn, tho I may slam the door in horror if this Barris-nado was behind it. I don't think it's savable without a 75% reversion to stock... or something else.

Yeah- this is the monster in my edition of the Peterson painting book we were discussing a while back. Downright awful- not a single change for the better IMO. Barris has done very little that makes me go WOW!

There is nothing that gets even one-tenth the traffic eBay does (that I've ever found). Personally I feel their charges are quite reasonable. If you don't, balance their charges against having access to -what- 6 million potential buyers and the value becomes crystal clear.