balthazar

Was one of a number of Cadillac sketches/ideas, circa '65-67, to be equipped with a V-16.

I don't know that any powertrain specs were finalized. This proposal was very short-lived- these may be the only pics ever released (taken??) of it; they're the only ones I've ever seen, and only a few times at that. Given that the '74 GTO was a 350 only (auto or manual), likely this one would've been the same.

No: both survive. The copper one is all original, the green one resurfaced in 1991 after being MIA since 1959 and has been restored as pictured above. Even unrestored, the green one (then a chipped, dirty white) was bid to $230K at auction.

You have a '77-79 deVille with the 425 V-8.

Yah- the twin Buick V-8s were mid-'60s 425 V-8 nailheads: 680 HP total.

1975 GTO.

RE: redlines: It was a hypothetical example, emp; not literal. And it's not the torque peak per say, but the torque curve and how well the car moves & feels like it's moving.

razor: I have no idea what you said above. Do you have an answer to the question on the table?? carguy: Nothing's been 'proved' at all, but I would like to hear how --if possible-- a higher-spinning engine would NOT emit a greater volume of pollutants (either way pretty minor in today's cars... just wondering).

More idle blather from my 'commuting home' brain... An average motorist (let's call him 'Randy'), not particularly an 'enthusiast', has a choice of two to make for his new midsize sedan. Nearly everything else is equal and the prices are right. But one is advertised and in fact has a high-revving 6-cylinder with a redline of 8000. The other is a torquey 6 with a redline of 5500. Since our man Randy is a bleeding heart ecologist, he asks himself: Given the same owner, roads traveled and driving techniques, would the car that requires on average 1500 more RPM to deliver the same level of performance... that extra RPM would have to in fact deliver a greater volume of emissions, right?

With the execption of the soon-to-be-phased-out GenIII engines currently in use in the trucks, all of GM's V8s are aluminum. General Motors' aluminum block production experience goes back to the 1960s.

A 4-cylinder Buick is NOT "realistic" and it will NOT "work".

Nope- not for me: too shapeless. No likey.

Gonna trounce everyone right here & now: tonight I saw one of the mere 7 Oscar Mayer Weinermobiles at a mom-n-pop motel for the night. :lol:

What the F are you talking about?? 'Outdated & cheap"?? I don't see any of that at all, sorry.

That's all well & good in 1958. But in 2005 if you open the hood of a U.S. Pontiac of this era, you do not have to steel yourself first at the idea a 6-banger might be molding away underhood. All V-8 power, baby! And of course my Wide-Track comment refers to '59 and later: nothing looks worse than a classic era Pontiac teetering on a Chevy narrow-track chassis. Sorry- I just don't care for Chevys...

Yeah, he's seen some torture at my hand over the years (play-torture!). I love him, but he had a tendancy to vomit about 1 a week or two, he doesn't cover his shit for some un-freakin-known reason, he requires insulin injections twice a day.... AND I'm allergic to him. I really like animals and I'll at least choke up when he kicks, but I just don't want to live with any anymore.

In the Dallas TX marketplace, Van Winkle Pontiac marketed the 1960 Pontiac Mustang by removing RPO series ID and replacing it with 'Mustang' fender scripts. These cars apparently were equipped with 8-lugs (first RPO year), but some were equipped with standard powertrains (2bbl 389s with optional autos). No idea on the quantity for '60 or if the 'model' was offered for '61. This one is so obscure that I have only seen 2 brief pieces in the same publication and no other mention anywhere in the last 15 years. I spent over 2 hours looking for the pieces in my library, cause it had popped unbidden into my mind last week. -- --- -- --- -- In 1959, Ford bought the rights to the name 'Comet' from the Comet Coach Company of Memphis TN, a coachbuilder that manufacturered ambulances & hearses, primarily on Oldsmobile chassis's. CCC subsequently changed their name to Cotner-Bevington, moved their headquarters to Blytheville AK and continued their coachbuilding until circa 1975, still primarily on Oldsmobile chassis's.

Didn't you know, Sixty8?: vintage Pontiacs always look better than Chevrolets. I find Canadian Pontiacs an oxymoron: they have the beautiful lines of a U.S. Pontiac with some unique trim but are crippled with narrow-tracks and often staggeringly ho-hum powertrains of 6-cylinders & PowerGlides. Blorf.

I am done living with animals. As soon as my cat kicks the bucket (he's 14 and diabetic).

I have little enthusiasm for this class of vehicles. I really like the centered exhaust tubes, and the rear is nicely finished for the segment, but there's too many 'untucked edges' on this one for me to run down to Spencers and pick up the poster. Is that cd number right: .37?? Yikes! that's pretty bad! An '82 Trans Am was at .31

RS option (code Z-22): $105.35 on either coupe or convert. Special full-width grille with electrically-operated headlights, parking lamps in front valance panel, full red taillamps with backup lamps in rear valance, RS emblems on gas cap, steering wheel, front fenders & grille, twin body pinstriping, wide adonized aluminum rocker moldings, wheel lip moldings, chrome drip rail on coupes. RS package could be combined with the SS option (code Z-27) "or any other Camaro RPO option except those that conflicted directly with it." Z-28 option: 302 V8, F-41 HD suspension, 15x6 Corvette Rallye wheels, E70-15 Wide Tread GT tires, Z-28 paint striping on hood/deck, N-44 quick-ratio manula steering, 302 fender emblems. Not part of the Z-28 package but mandated by that option were front power discs & any 1 of the 3 four-speeds. You COULD order a Z-28 & Z-22 options on the same car (that's is not to say that any were necessarily sold that way). '68 Camaros w/ Z-28 option: 7,199 units. '67 Camaros w/ Z-28 option: 602 units.

V8-6-4 was MY 1981 (only) and it was optional equip. on the Seville that year, as opposed to standard on the f/s lines. I have always liked the 'bustleback' Sevilles and have always kept an eye open for a nasty road-burning custom converted to RWD, but I never saw any done. Also really like the interiors in the 1st & 2nd gens; there's something about them... I still remember seeing an all red bustleback years ago, no vinyl top with the extra-wide sweepspear moldings, beautifully clean; it really was a stunning car.

No guesses anyone?? :( Here's partial non-revealing copy from one of the local ads for the first vehicle: >>>Announcing a New Series, The _______ Mustang. "Safety Features to Match Mustang's Unsurpassed Performance." Special Non-Fade Brakes. Aluminum Fin Wheels. Special Mustang Color ((2 omitted due to being blatant clues))<<< From this same ad was the notice that a free Shetland pony was going to be given away also (get it: Shetland Pony = Musta... nevermind). Ad copy from the second vehicle: >>>Advanced engineering, superlative quality and unsurpassed value will have _____ talking about the new 19__ ____ ____.<<< Both of these respective vehicles originated/were headquartered in major U.S. cities south of the M-D. None of the above was any help, was it.

I wonder if my point (vs. cars) is being lost in all the fun with loggers: 1960s Arithmatic test >< 1960s cars: Simple, straightforward, user-friendly, engineered with common-sense. 1970s New Math test >< 1970s cars: The beginning of needlessly-confusing a well-engineered system. 1980s 'dumbed-down' version >< 1980s cars: A really sad period for motor vehicles. 1990s version >< 1990s cars: A different, more touchy-feely type of namby-pamby sadness that continues to get farther away from where things should be. ;)

-- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- 1960s Arithmatic test: "A logger cuts & sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is four-fifths of that amount. What is his profit?" 1970s New Math test: "A logger exchanges a set (L) of lumber for a set (M) of money. The cardinality of Set M is 100. The Set C of production costs contains 20 fewer points. What is the cardinality of Set P of profits?" 1980s 'dumbed-down' version: "A logger cuts & sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost is $80, his profit is $20. Find & circle the number 20." 1990s version: "An unenlightened logger cuts down a beautiful stand of trees in order to make a $20 profit. Write an essay explaining how you feel about this way to make money. Topic for discussion: How did the forest birds & squirrels feel?" -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- I see it, anyway....