wildmanjoe

I checked the front fenders, checked under the battery box, checked around the heater box, checked the floor boards, checked the cab corners, checked the cab mounts, checked the doors, checked the rocker panels, checked the bed sides, checked the wood bed, checked the bumper brackets, checked the frame, checked the mounting arms for the rear axle, checked the A-arms for rust and cracks, checked the coil buckets and ran over the whole body with a magnet and found two whole spots where there were rust holes, of which I included pictures. What's left for there to be riddled with rust? I don't care about the topper and I've never seen a roof rust through unless there was a vinyl top or it was sitting on its roof in the dirt. Besides which nobody here is insulting you personally; I think some people are just a little tired of members buying vehicles that were obvious problem children, getting defensive right after the vehicle was purchased, then later posting that the vehicle had been sold/scrapped because it was a money pit. The original method to my madness would be to pick this up as an interesting and useful summer driver and save my Grand Marquiscrapheap as a winter beater since this truck is a six cylinder and insurance would be cheaper. Since a mower engine I recently rebuilt recently bit the dust, I no longer trust myself with engine work and paying someone else to rebuild a smokey engine puts this out of my budget. Because of that, I'm taking a pass on the truck.

Found on eBay: Low Mileage Station Wagons The first low mileage station wagon for today is a 1964 Chevrolet Belair with 65,000 miles and a gasser conversion. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Gasser-Hot-Rod-Rat-Rod-/290607105492?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item43a98885d4 The second low mileage station wagon is a 1956 Buick Special with 18,000 miles and is one of 17,300 made. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1956-BUICK-SPECIAL-WAGON-ALL-ORIGINAL-ALL-THERE-SIMILAR-NOMAD-NICE-L-K-/200651113777?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2eb7bd0531 The third station wagon is a 1957 Dodge D-500 with 57,000 miles and a hemi. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1957-DODGE-STA-WAGON-FACTORY-D-500-59K-MILES-/220846309642?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item336b77410a The fourth station wagon is a 1958 Chevrolet Yeoman wagon with 94,000 miles and new upholstery. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevy-Yeoman-Wagon-/110738744842?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19c88b260a The fifth wagon is a 1958 Edsel Villager with 43,000 miles and would look better with woodgrain and a surfboard on the roof. (THAT'S RIGHT! I WENT THERE! ANYBODY WANNA FIGHT ABOUT IT???) Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1958-Edsel-Villager-Wagon-Beautiful-Condition-CA-Car-/370541483379?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item5645fe5573 The sixth is a 1965 Buick Sport wagon with 97,000 miles that needs a bath. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Solid-One-Owner-Running-1965-Buick-Sport-Wagon-/230669245065?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item35b4f55a89 The seventh is a 1965 Saab 95 Estate wagon with 67,000 miles that would probably fit in the cargo hold of any of the other wagon on this list. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-Saab-model-95-estate-wagon-/160647427742?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item256755369e The eighth is a 1966 Chevrolet Nova with 40,000 miles and a Powergilde. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1966-Canadian-Chevrolet-Nova-Wagon-Low-Actual-Miles-/190574880256?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2c5f25e600 The ninth is a 1974 Chevrolet Impala with 92,000 miles and has a 400 small block. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chev-Impala-Wagon-1974-/260849921002?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3cbbddebea The tenth is a 1976 Chevrolet Caprice with 83,000 miles and has one of those cool tailgates that folds into the car. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Estate-Wagon-Woody-Wagon-76-Caprice-Impala-1976-/110741542639?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19c8b5d6ef The eleventh is is a 1977 Ford Pinto with 57,000 miles and is missing the shag carpeting to go along with the opera window. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1977-FORD-PINTO-WAGON-OPERA-WINDOW-RARE-CLASSIC-/250888124822?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3a6a18f996 The twelfth is a 1977 Dodge Aspen with 38,000 miles and a slant 6. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Dodge-Aspen-Wagon-38k-Actual-Miles-1977-SC-Pre-Owned-Mopar-Wagon-Chrylser-/150659567491?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2314028f83 The final low mileage station wagon for today is a 1978 Ford Country Squire with 45,000 miles and a new exhaust. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1978-Ford-Country-Squire-Wagon-45K-original-miles-collectible-tin-woodie-/290607953110?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item43a99574d6

Found on eBay: Low Mileage Two Doors The first low mileage two door for today is a 1964 Chevrolet Impala SS with 57,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1964-CHEVY-IMPALA-SS-327-4-SPEED-LOW-MILEAGE-RARE-/250887962903?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3a6a168117 The second is a 1969 Lincoln Continental MKIII with 26,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Continental-Mark-III-LOW-MILES-Very-Clean-and-Runs-/250889257135?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3a6a2a40af The third is a 1978 Cadillac Eldorado with 32,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NO-RESERVE-NICE-LOW-MILEAGE-ELDO-/190572460647?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2c5f00fa67 The fourth is a 1978 Mercury Grand Marquis with 53,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MERCURY-GRAND-MARQUIS-COUPE-LONG-LOW-53K-MILES-/320753999613?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item4aae6d9efd The fifth is a 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix with 48,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SUPER-LOW-48-000-MILES-Single-family-owned-Amazing-condition-Daily-driver-/180721638798?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a13d95d8e The final low mileage two door for today is a 1982 Dodge 400 with 41,000 miles. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1982-Dodge-400-Convertible-low-mileage-beauty-/130573048043?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item1e66c298eb

Found on eBay: 1959 Pontiac Statchief With 20,000 Miles Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Low-Mileage-Survivor-/110738794895?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19c88be98f

See the two photos of rust holes I posted? Those are the only spots on the whole truck that were rusted through; driver's side rocker and front lower corner of the drivers door. Even the cab corners, cab mounts, floors and bed sides were solid and that never happens on Minnesota truck. The rest of the truck would have been a comparative breeze to refinish. Anywho, it looks like it needs a valve job and ring job as well as new tires. Unless he wants to substantially drop the price, I think I'm taking a pass on this one.

I'm trying to make up my mind whether this 1966 Chevrolet 3/4 ton would be a good buy or not. The facts: 1966 Chevrolet 3/4 ton. $1,000 250 inline six 4-speed. Eaton rear axle. The Good: Body is solid other than small holes in quarter panel and rocker. Drivetrain is known for dead reliability. Close by. Easy to fix. I've got all the time in the world to work on it. Checked the body with a magnet and no bondo. Frame is solid. The Bad: Hasn't run in 3 years and I'm not spending $1,000 and a vehicle that doesn't run. Wood bed needs replacing. Engine and clutch work are not my strong points. I'd have to knock over and rebuild a barn so I'd have a spot to put it. Terrible repaint. I shouldn't really be spending money on project vehicles while I'm severely underemployed. I'm still up in the air over this. It's the right vehicle at the right price, but at the wrong time. What do you guys think? Pictures:

Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1978-CHRYSLER-CORDOBA-BIG-BLOCK-LOW-MILES-/300595420066?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item45fce21ba2 Found on eBay: 1978 Chrysler Cordoba with 32,000 miles Radio delete? Seriously? I like the candy striper seats though: Big snakey mess:

Found on eBay: Low mileage GMs The first low mileage GM for today is a 1953 GMC with 49,000 miles and a large GMC emblem in the middle of the steering wheel, lest you forget what you are driving. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1953-GMC-PICK-UP-1-OWNER-STUPID-LOW-MILES-/260844225805?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3cbb87050d The second low mileage GM vehicle is a 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air that has 42,000 miles and is unrestored. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1955-CHEVROLET-BEL-AIR-ORIGINAL-ORIGINAL-LOW-MILES-/180720317447?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a13c53407 The third GM vehicle is a 1962 Cadillac Sedan Deville with 25,000 miles and a hard top. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BEAUTIFUL-1962-CADILLAC-DEVILLE-ONE-OWNER-LOW-MILES-/130568321213?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item1e667a78bd The fourth is a 1962 Grand Prix with 62,000 miles and a clean windshield. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1962-pontiac-grand-prix-low-miles-light-blue-v-8-/140602421594?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20bc8eb15a The fifth is a 1968 Pontiac Tempest with 75,000 miles and pulls of the whole "pointy beak" thing much better than Mercedes ever did. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/AIR-CONDITIONING-350-2BBL-POWER-STEER-YouTube-Video-/290605825697?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item43a974fea1 The sixth is a 1971 Chevrolet Monte Carlo with 97,000 miles and fender skirts. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1971-CHEVY-MONTE-CARLO-LOW-MILES-V8-AC-COLLECTORS-ITEM-/220846245565?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item336b7646bd The seventh is a 1973 Cadillac Coupe Deville with 56,000 miles and a bug deflector that brings a tears to eye of even the most hardened fans of bug deflectors. *sniff* Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-Cadillac-Coupe-Deville-LOw-Original-Miles-/120773119838?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item1c1ea38f5e The eighth is a 1977 Buick Regal with 55,000 miles and white walls. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ONE-OWNER-PRE-LOW-MILES-/250886992502?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3a6a07b276 The ninth is a 1977 Buick Skylark with 39,000 miles and non-functional AC. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1977-BUICK-SKYLARK-ORIGINAL-LOW-MILES-/300595769106?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item45fce76f12 The tenth is a 1982 Cadillac Eldorado with 13,000 miles and a digital speedo. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1982-Cadillac-Eldorado-Coupe-Yellow-LOW-MILES-Immac-/260845314392?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3cbb97a158 The eleventh is a 1983 Cadillac Seville with 62,000 miles and strut braces for that extra performance edge. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1983-CADILLAC-SEVILLE-ONE-OWNER-LOW-MILES-VERY-NICE-/300595654121?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item45fce5ade9 The final low mileage GM vehicle for today is a 1993 Chevrolet Camaro Indy pace car with 4,500 miles and is one of only 645. Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/93-Camaro-Z-28-Indy-Pace-Car-Low-Miles-/150657149608?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2313ddaaa8

It's been long enough, go ahead and spill the beans.

Link: http://www.kare11.com/news/article/936504/333/Hundreds-of-panties-turn-up-along-Ohio-road Hundreds of panties turn up along Ohio road LANCASTER, Ohio -- Authorities in central Ohio are trying to solve a panties puzzle: why hundreds of pairs of mostly women's underwear were dumped along the side of a road. Fairfield County Deputy Gary Hummel said Thursday the undergarments were found in trees and on hillsides in several spots this week on a road in Berne Township, about 30 miles southeast of Columbus. He says some of the panties were still folded the way they'd come in packaging, while others appeared to have been worn. There were nearly 1,700 pairs in all, in a mix of colors and patterns. Hummel says when collected, they filled 10 large trash bags. He says investigators are "baffled" as to where the panties came from. ***************************************************************************** This is ridiculous. 1,500 pairs are enough panties for anyone's collection. 1,700 is just wretched excess. Furthermore,

The only Rangers with a large off road following are the TTB models and they haven't been made for 14 years. If it was positioned along the lines of a cheaper and smaller alternative to the Tacoma and Frontier (neither of which have been lighting up the sales charts) they could sell every last one at a sub-$18,000 price point. Any higher than that and they'd probably be eating into F-150 sales.

Link: http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/08/spy-photos-2013-chevy-cruze-diesel-testing-with-a-jetta-tdi-in-the-desert.html Can anyone decipher the acronyms on the sheet of paper in the window? LUZ? SCR?

It's a Pontiac concept.

Ocn got the first one, Camino got the third one. The first one is a Monteverdi Sierra and the third one is a Monteverdi Safari.

What American car is this Swiss car based upon? What does the "c" in the name of this one represent? What American SUV is this Swiss one based upon?

Link: http://detnews.com/article/20110828/AUTO01/108280310/1148/auto01/Scientists-create-biofuel-from-old-newspapersScientists create biofuel from old newspapers First birdcage liners, now fuel. Scientists at Tulane University have discovered a new use for discarded newspapers — one that can turn yesterday's news into the alternative fuel of tomorrow. Their research has hit upon a bacterial strain that chomps away at the cellulose in old newsprint, turning the organic material into butanol, a bio-substitute for the gas tank. The strain is the first bacterial microbe found in nature that produces butanol directly from cellulose, a material found in all green plants, university officials say. A team led by Tulane molecular biology professor David Mullin discovered the microbe in animal dung at the New Orleans zoo and dubbed the strain TU-103, using the university's initials. "In the United States alone, at least 323 million tons of cellulosic materials that could be used to produce butanol are thrown out each year," said Harshad Velankar, a postdoctoral fellow working with Mullin's group. Turning it into butanol is the "dream of many," he said in a statement. The researchers are using old editions of the hometown newspaper, the Times Picayune, to experiment with the strain. Unlike other butanol-producing microbes, this one can withstand the presence of oxygen. A patent is pending on the strain, and it's unclear whether the technology has any market viability. Other attempts at creating biofuel have failed to gain traction, even though the federal government and the auto industry have spent considerable money trying to broaden their presence in the market place. Ethanol — a plant-based biofuel — was briefly popular several years ago as the gas alternative of choice. Cellulosic ethanol is made from renewable sources, such as corn sugar, agricultural waste and wood chips. Some researchers have even gone as far as to experiment with turning algae into this fuel. But as battery technology improved and more automakers turned to electric cars as a way to cut emissions, ethanol has fallen to the wayside. Some claim it damages engines, as well. Butanol, however, is different from ethanol. It can readily fuel existing cars and trucks without any engine modification and has a higher energy density, making it more like unleaded gasoline. The auto industry, however, isn't sold on it. Nor have efforts to promote a butanol-gas mixture caught on. ***********************************************************************

Being a "car guy" has nothing to do with it. Roger Smith wasn't a car guy and he nearly killed GM. Bob Nardelli isn't a car guy he ran Chrysler into bankruptcy. What makes a CEO a good or bad one is whether they can perform an honest examination of their company's strengths and weaknesses, then get the company to play to its strengths and shore up it's weaknesses, which seems to be Akerson's aim. What the industry needs fewer of are people who have embedded themselves comfortably into a bureaucracy and whine whenever their boat gets rocked. The upper echelons of GM are not a cruise ship where you get to lounge around until you retire, it's a place to run a corporation.

Found on eBay: Multiple Malaise Era Motorcars Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1978-sunbird-CONCEPT-CAR-/270806810231?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3f0d57fe77 There are three cars in this auctions, the first being this 1978 Sunbird Concept with a retractable canvas roof and a factory fresh 246 miles: The second is this brown Chevy Monza with 49,000 miles and a single owner. The final car is this blue Chevy Monza hatchback with a four speed. All of them can be yours for $4,800. Which one of you will be the first to take this man's offer?

Link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/general-motors-ceo-dan-akerson-is-not-a-car-guy-08252011.htmlGeneral Motors CEO Dan Akerson Is Not a Car Guy The new boss of GM has no auto industry experience and a knack for telling employees what they don’t want to hear. Does that make him the right leader to save the carmaker? In June, Daniel F. Akerson, the chairman and chief executive officer of General Motors, gave a speech to about 400 engineers and designers at the company’s technical center north of Detroit. It was a boilerplate, morale-boosting speech, generous with exhortations about work ethics and staying vigilant. Then came the Q&A session. One employee wanted to know: What kind of hours did Akerson expect them to put in at the office? Akerson answered with a family parable. He told the crowd he’d called his son’s office at 6:30 that morning and found him at his desk. Akerson informed his son, who does not work at GM, that he would call again in 12 hours and that he expected him to still be at work. The moral, as if anyone in the room needed an explanation: “Generous Motors” is gone, so get busy. Next question. The anecdote didn’t go over well, according to two people in attendance who spoke on condition of anonymity because the gathering was private. This was 10 months into Akerson’s reign as CEO and two and a half years after the company’s bankruptcy and bailout by the federal government. Thousands had lost their jobs, leaving the survivors to do more even as they watched their stock in old GM evaporate. “I hope some people are uncomfortable,” says Akerson. “It’s not my role to make people comfortable. I don’t know what it was like here five years ago, and really I don’t care. We’re in a war.” When the U.S. Treasury appointed him to GM’s board in 2009, Akerson, 62, had no auto industry experience. He does have a résumé, though: nearly 20 years as a telecom industry executive, successfully leading MCI and Nextel, then a run as a private equity investor with Carlyle Group. Depending on who’s talking, these qualifications make him either a refreshing force for change or a clueless newbie doing more harm than good. “It’s not that he isn’t smart or a good executive, he just lacks the background,” says Maryann N. Keller, a longtime car industry consultant. “Even when he gets an answer, he may not know if it’s the right answer.” Of course, the same could be said of Ford’s (F) Alan Mulally (previously at Boeing) (BA) and Akerson’s predecessor, Edward E. Whitacre Jr. (AT&T) (T). “Being new was a gift because I could ask questions that were impolite, previously imponderable, or politically incorrect,” Akerson says in his 39th-floor office at GM’s headquarters in Detroit’s Renaissance Center. The office is decorated with large glamour photographs of a Camaro and a Cadillac, but not the auto-racing tchotchkes that industry veterans typically display. “I’m not a car guy,” he says. “Nor should the CEO be worried about rear axle ratios on the next transmission.” Now that GM is making money—profits hit $6.2 billion last year, and the company has $32 billion in cash—Akerson has moved the company out of survival mode and is pushing it, whipping it even, to grow. “If the company doesn’t change its culture, it won’t be his fault,” says Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “GM needs 50 Akersons.” Akerson was born in California and raised in Mankato, Minn. His father had been an enlisted man in the U.S. Navy. Akerson attended the Naval Academy, graduated in 1970, and served a tour aboard a destroyer during the Vietnam War. He boxed in college—he was a light heavyweight—which may help explain his penchant for talking smack. Since taking over at GM, he has declared Lincoln dead—Ford should “sprinkle holy water” on its luxury brand, he told the Detroit News—and ridiculed Toyota’s ™ Prius as a “geekmobile.” The jab at Toyota came during a speech last December in Washington, when he heaped praise on the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid and would-be Prius killer. In December, Akerson and his top managers had a meeting in the office of Thomas Stephens, then the company’s vice-chairman of global product development. The team wallpapered the room with plans for the Volt’s rollout, including pricing, sales targets, and production. Stephens and the product development staff figured the plan was baked and ready to go. Sales started that month and supplier contracts were already in place for future model years. Akerson homed in on the plan to build 45,000 Volts next year and wasn’t satisfied. “The package came to me completely sanitized. ‘Here it is, Mr. CEO, put your stamp on it,’” he says. “I wanted more, more, more.” Prior to the meeting, Akerson says, someone told him that new models need to sell at least 100,000 in a year to be successful. So that’s the goal he gave his team: 120,000 Volts in 2012. When GM’s Volt engineers heard about their new stretch target, they blanched—and not merely because engineers everywhere tend to resent orders from the suits. It took the Prius about seven years to hit the annual numbers Akerson wanted. Since the Volt is still a money loser, jacking up production would only push prices lower and losses wider. Quality could suffer, too, they argued, if GM pressured its suppliers to nearly triple the volume of the car’s high-tech parts, especially its lithium-ion batteries. After four months of fact-finding and debate, Akerson backed off. It turned out that the suppliers wouldn’t take on the risk of building enough batteries to power 120,000 Volts unless GM guaranteed to repay their capital investment should sales come up short. (In the past, the company had exuberant sales forecasts for hybrid systems in its large SUVs that never quite materialized, making it difficult for suppliers to make a return on their investment.) Since no one at GM could say for certain how many of these pricey, tech-laden cars it could actually sell, Akerson settled on a production goal of 60,000—half of what he wanted and still a third more than his development people originally planned. The compromise also sent a message to his team: He may be pushy and unschooled in the practicalities of automobile production, but he wasn’t, as he puts it, “just a reckless riverboat gambler.” GM Vice-Chairman Stephen J. Girsky says Akerson’s sense of when to relent is what makes him more than a mere bully. “Even when he loses,” says Girsky, “it’s a good thing because he is challenging the organization.” William E. Conway Jr., co-founder and managing partner of Carlyle Group, says, “People say he is tough but I wouldn’t say that. Dan will make the tough decisions, but he is also willing to change his mind.” - One of Akerson’s first tasks after taking over as CEO last Sept. 1 was figuring out how to break up the old bureaucracy without losing too much institutional knowledge. For help, he turned to an old pro: retired IBM (IBM) Chief Executive Louis V. Gerstner Jr., who came to GM’s headquarters in January to talk shop. Gerstner was a computer industry novice when IBM’s board hired him from RJR Nabisco in 1993. Early on, he brought in a new chief financial officer, Jerry York, who had been CFO at Chrysler. Then he concentrated on assembling a team with deep knowledge of the computer business. His advice regarding GM, says Akerson, was to identify optimists with experience and a competitive streak and promote them. In February, Akerson nudged aside the veteran Stephens in favor of Mary T. Barra, the 49-year-old human resources director, to run product development. (Stephens is now chief technology officer.) Akerson elevated former Hyundai marketer Joel Ewanick to global chief marketing officer and promoted Treasurer Daniel Ammann, 39, to CFO after the resignation of Ammann’s predecessor, Christopher P. Liddell. Filling out Akerson’s top team are Girsky, a former Wall Street analyst and private equity investor who’d been an in-house adviser in 2005 and 2006, and GM-North America President Mark Reuss. A GM lifer, Reuss is the management team’s car guy and has earned Akerson’s trust. Reuss recalls that around the same time Akerson was pushing to sell more Volts, the boss was raising questions about the next-generation Chevy Malibu. At a meeting at GM’s design center north of Detroit in December, Reuss and design chief Edward Welburn proudly showed Akerson a hard-foam mockup of the future Malibu. The design added the distinctive tail lights and sculpted haunches of the hot-selling Camaro. Akerson loved it. Reuss says Akerson turned to him and asked, “How fast can we get this?” The car wasn’t due to market until mid-2012. Akerson wanted it as soon as possible. He pointed out that the longer Chevy has to sell the current car, the more incentives it will need. That would push its price closer to the all-new Cruze compact. A loaded Cruze compact sells for almost $23,000, and the larger Malibu sedan starts below $22,000, not counting $1,000 in rebates and cut-rate financing offered on the bigger car. Akerson’s fear was that buyers would opt for the Malibu and cannibalize Cruze sales. Old GM pushed back. One employee sent Akerson a long e-mail telling him why pulling the car ahead was a dumb idea. Engineers said that rushing the Malibu could compromise quality. Worse, the new four-cylinder engine wouldn’t be ready until later next year. The engine was designed to make its debut on the Malibu and there is no way to speed engine development, Reuss says. The rebellion went straight to Akerson. “I started getting e-mails from people I didn’t even know saying I would threaten the quality of the product,” he says. Others told him that the Malibu already had a POR, for “plan of record,” which is GM-speak for “set in stone.” “I asked, ‘Don’t you ever reshuffle your plan?’” Akerson recalls, his palms raised in exasperation. “Let’s think competitively.” He responded to the internal critics by saying that the family sedan business is hotly competitive and GM would blow about $200 million in incentives over the next year while waiting for a fresher model of the Malibu. Then Reuss, who’d come up through the company’s engineering ranks, realized that the company had another four-cylinder engine that would be ready in January and could be mated with GM’s eAssist mild hybrid system. After just three meetings—unheard-of at GM—the company figured out how to start selling the new Malibu in January with the hybrid system, offering buyers 38 mpg on the highway. The hybrid version will help GM compete with the Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry, both of which offer hybrid systems in their cars. Some of the new team’s decisions have been costly. Late last year, Reuss concluded that GM should jack up rebates to help dealers boost volume and thin out rising pickup truck inventory. Akerson backed him, and GM offered the industry’s largest deals in the first quarter of 2011. The move was an echo of pre-bankruptcy GM, which used massive rebates to boost sales and sell out the capacity of its overblown factory network. The strategy helped sales, but GM’s first-quarter earnings showed that the new management team overspent: GM said the incentives lowered profits by $300 million. Meanwhile, Ford said its price increases helped its bottom line by $900 million in the quarter. “It’s unbelievable that after this huge taxpayer bailout and the bankruptcy that we’re right back to where we were,” says Jefferies & Co. analyst Peter Nesvold. Lesson learned, says Girsky. “When the gap showed up, Dan started asking some questions,” he says. “It wasn’t lost on anyone here what had happened.” Akerson is planning to stay at GM for three to four years, says a person familiar with the CEO’s intentions. During that time, he’ll have some legacy-defining decisions to make. GM has seven global engineering centers, which the company calls tier-one centers, each specializing in designing the foundations of vehicles that are most popular in their regions. The Korean center specializes in subcompacts for emerging markets, the U.S. focuses on trucks, Europe on compact cars, and so on. The cars are engineered in those centers and sold around the globe. The centers have produced some recent hits, including the Chevrolet Cruze compact and Buick LaCrosse sedan, but Akerson says the system is too costly and complex. He may shut down some centers and consolidate engineering. It would save money—and it could also backfire by shifting development of some models away from the experts. “There’s always that risk,” Akerson says. “Does our competition have seven tier-one engineering centers around the globe? I can tell you they don’t.” He’s weighing how to make Cadillac a global luxury player that can rival BMW, Mercedes, and Audi. This has been the subject of yet another internal debate at GM. Akerson says there was a push to go after Europe first and establish Cadillac as a legitimate competitor to the German brands. He disagreed. Akerson figured that investing in Europe first would mean missing out on the real growth market, China. He won. By the third quarter of next year, GM will be making more than 100,000 Cadillacs a year on the mainland. Going after the European market is at least two years away, Akerson says. “If we wait five years, German brands will take over. We have a chance in the second-largest market in the world.” Another big choice awaiting Akerson is the designation of his successor. He has nothing but praise for Reuss, Girsky, Ammann, and Barra. He says he wants to groom a few different candidates and then heaps even more praise on Reuss. “He has been a real find,” Akerson says. “He is a terrific executive.” (Reuss’s father, Lloyd, was GM’s president from 1990-92.) Akerson knows that none of those decisions will matter if GM backslides, as it has so often in the past. The company has a long history of following periods of glory with periods of failure. Breaking out of that cycle will require a new work ethic, product vigilance, and all the other virtues he harangues GM employees about. This summer, Akerson had his top 60 managers engage in a kind of automotive war game called Tough Love. The exercise called for six teams with 10 executives each representing GM’s major competitors. The executives had to get out of the GM uniform, Akerson says, and figure out how to crush the company. Akerson was on the Fiat-Chrysler team. Team Toyota, headed by Girsky, examined how that company handled its recall fiasco last year. The Japanese company offered deals to its customers to bring them back. GM figured Toyota may come out swinging with aggressive sales tactics once the tsunami’s impact subsides and Japan’s factories are cranking again. They also decided the Prius—the geekmobile—still gave Toyota a huge advantage in fuel economy. GM has the Volt, but team Toyota didn’t think GM would do much beyond that. GM’s remedy: Come up with something Toyota won’t expect. As a result, GM this summer resurrected the once-shelved Cadillac Converj, a concept car using Volt technology. Akerson says the car will come to market a few years from now, under the name Cadillac ELR. When asked later about strategies his team came up with to destroy GM, he demurs, claiming he spent most of his time observing. The main goal of the exercise was getting his executives to consider every threat, as opposed to pretending the competition doesn’t exist. Akerson says he’s pleased with the changes in attitudes he saw during Tough Love. “Going into this exercise, there were a lot of cynics and doubters,” he says. “After, the feedback was, ‘Man, we’ve got a lot of work to do.’” ***************************************************************************** On the upside, it's good to see someone taking Lutz's place as the designated feather ruffler. On the down side, it looks like there are still some malignant masses of "Old GM" hanging around.

I have no idea what they are talking about with regards to the original Odyssey, this thing has no doors:

Link: http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/chevrolet/2012-chevrolet-orlando-review-1592.html2012 Chevrolet Orlando Review It’s not often that automakers go to the trouble of bringing a car to Canada, but refrain from selling it in the United States. With one tenth the population and different homologation laws than the United States, the costs rarely make it worthwhile for automakers to import unique products to the Canadian market. Typically, the exceptions to the rule are vehicles like the Mercedes-Benz B-Class or Nissan X-Trail – compact utility vehicles that are fuel efficient and priced in the lower end of their segments. With vehicle prices around 30% higher than the United States, and fuel prices beyond $5/gallon, Canadians tend to buy vehicles similar to those purchased by European consumers. The Chevrolet Orlando is one such vehicle intended for world markets that will not make it to America, but will be sold in Canada thanks to its low prices, a small footprint and efficient 4-cylinder engine. According to GM Canada, American engineers wanted to include features like knee airbags to help the Orlando meet an obscure American crash test regulation, but the cost of this change would have made the venture unprofitable. Since the vehicle already met every other unified North American standard, it was an easy choice to sell it in Canada, where the Mazda5 enjoys brisk sales and a near monopoly on the small minivan market. SHARES PLENTY WITH THE CRUZE The Orlando is built in Korea and engineering was largely overseen by GM Daewoo (yes, that Daewoo), GM’s Korean engineering arm. GM Daewoo also worked on the Cruze compact car, a vehicle that has gained widespread market acceptance, even if it’s no longer the pinnacle of compact car engineering. That’s not to say it’s a bad car by any means, the Orlando is lucky to benefit from a number of similarities with the Cruze. The interiors of the two vehicles are aesthetically identical, with the same plastic pieces, stereo interface and HVAC controls shared between the two cars. One neat difference is a stereo head unit that flips up to reveal a cubby hole that can be used for sunglasses, iPods and other small items that need to be concealed. Frankly, we hope to see it on a lot more cars in the future, and it’s an example of how one well thought-out idea can endear us to a pretty mundane vehicle. CRUDE ENGINE DOES THE JOB, GETS EXCELLENT FUEL ECONOMY Of course, we mean that in the best way possible. The Orlando isn’t a total bore to drive, but the 2.4L Ecotec 4-cylinder engine and 6-speed gearbox do not hold up their end of the bargain. The engine feels coarse under hard acceleration and makes noises like an agricultural vehicle, although the power is certainly in place. The 6-speed automatic, as seen on the Cruze and other vehicles, has long been an enemy of ours, with its clumsy operation and gear hunting on inclines doing little to change our opinions. GM claims 22-mpg in the city and 34-mpg on the highway (our conversion), which is certainly better than one would find in a larger minivan, and bests the 21/28-mpg rating of the Mazda5. A 6-speed manual is also offered, but we skipped it entirely, as the market for this unit is probably smaller than those Canadians who favor privatized healthcare or more lax gun laws. Our Orlando LT model (the trim level we expect most buyers to opt for) rode smoothly on the back roads of Ontario’s Muskoka region (Canada’s version of the Hamptons), where roads aren’t always repaved annually. We also found the Orlando to be fairly quiet save for some wind noise emanating from the A-Pillar, an issue that we also experienced with the Cruze. During our drive, we sampled the third row of seats, and found that they provided an adequate amount of room for fully-grown passengers. A multi-hour road trip may not be preferable, but going across town on errands wouldn’t be so bad. The second row is similarly spacious without any of the claustrophobia that sets in on drives longer than 60 minutes. THE VERDICT Aside from the Mazda5 (or perhaps the larger Dodge Journey), there’s not much else on the market similar to the Orlando. In fact, the Orlando reminds us of the original Honda Odyssey, which also used conventional doors, an efficient 4-cylinder engine and a third row of seats to compete with more conventional minivans. That Odyssey, which sold from 1995-1998, was a massive flop in North America but did gain a devoted cult following (and a popular taxi in New York City) among those who wanted utility without any of the excess of a traditional minivan. The Odyssey was the right vehicle for the wrong time, but with a general trend towards downsizing, and some very aggressive pricing (the Orlando starts at a $20,325), value conscious shoppers in Canada will likely flock to their nearest Chevy dealership.

Do you happen to have any other shots of this beautiful 1956 GMC? I'd love to see more of it That was the only angle I could get that didn't involve unseemly amounts of glare. I can try getting a screen grab from my video a few posts above if you like.

1956 Imperial: 1952 Chevrolet 1 ton: 1951 International: 1950 Studebaker Commander: 1950 Chevrolet: 1949 Plymouth Special: 1948 Mercury: 1946 Chevrolet 1 ton: 1941 International panel: 1940 Ford Bus: 1939 Pontiac ambulance: Oldmsobile:

1977 Pontiac Grand Prix: 1977 Plymouth Volare: 1977 Ford LTD: 1976 Buick Century: 1975 Chevrolet Caprice: 1975 Chevrolet Caprice: 1974 Oldsmobile Delta 88: 1974 Chrysler Newport: 1974 Chevrolet Chevelle: 1973 Plymouth Fury III: 1972 Ford F250: 1971 Pontiac Grand Prix: 1971 Chevrolet Corvette: 1970 Plymouth Road Runner Super Bird: 1970 Chevrolet El Camino: 1969 Dodge Daytona: 1967 Dodge D100: 1967 Dodge Charger: 1966 Dodge Charger: 1965 Mercury Commuter Wagon: 1964 GMC: 1964 Chevrolet C10: 1964 Chevrolet C10: 1964 Chevrolet Belair: 1963 Chevrolet C20: 1961 Willys: 1960 Sport Prinz: 1960 Imperial: 1959 Buick: 1956 GMC:

I know that the modern way to align a vehicle involves mounting optical sensors to the wheels and reading the computer screen to tell you how far to adjust the caster/Camber/toe etc, I've done it a hundred times. But how was alignment checked before computers? Toe I can imagine using some sort of metered stick and eyeballing it, but how caster and camber were measured I can't figure out.