Caddy should do what MB is doing...

[Mach5GTP]

Read this in a recent car mag, can't remember which. Basically, Mercedes is collecting and restoring some of their classic models at specialized shops. For the longest time, I've felt Cadillac should do this. My family has had 3 beautiful old Caddies over the years- a 64 Coupe DeVille, a 65 Sedan DeVille, and a 75 CDV. Ours were all in great shape (dad was a bodyman/mechanic, so that helped) as long as we owned them, but I've always seen similar old Caddies that are just sad to behold- belching smoke, rusting to pieces, missing pieces, etc. I always thought that, out of respect for the brand, Cadillac should buy out all those old cars, restore the ones that can be saved, and put the rest out of its misery. Im my eyes, having all these clapped-out rotting hulks limping around w/ the Cadillac crest on them (the ones that haven't rusted off, anyway) takes something away from the brand's heritage and future. Imagine buying a "brand-new" 75 Coupe DeVille at a Cadillac dealer, full factory warranty, fit/finish, and performance. I'm a Pontiac man first, then Oldsmobile, then Cadillac, but I might move Heaven and Earth to get my hands on a new 65 SDV like my father drove...

[Drew Dowdell]

Cadillac should do what MB is doing in terms of platforms. That is, taking their older platforms, sprucing them up a bit and handing them to the lesser divisions while developing the high tech stuff for itself

[balthazar]

Mach5, you know your proposal would have astronomical cost, right? The average 30-50 yr old Cadillac is also much more complex than the average mercedes of the same time period- thusly the restorations would be much more expensive...
I understand the sentiment but it's not practical beyond a very limited quantity. Of course, Cadillac DOES have a number of their past dream cars & production models already, maybe a few dozen in their collection, but those are not for sale.

[Enzora]

Cadillac should do what MB is doing in terms of platforms. That is, taking their older platforms, sprucing them up a bit and handing them to the lesser divisions while developing the high tech stuff for itself

[post="63998"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, that's basically the case with the Lucerne, but that would be a great idea for future generations of RWD Buicks and Pontiacs.

[VenSeattle]

Well, that's basically the case with the Lucerne, but that would be a great idea for future generations of RWD Buicks and Pontiacs.

[post="64094"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I can't see how that statement is true... Oldsmobile & Buick had the G-Platform first (1995 Aurora & Riviera).

However, GM has long exercised the "trickle down" effect with technology. Buick now has the G-Platform with MRC & N* V8. That's a big boost.

[Hudson]

Cadillac should do what MB is doing in terms of platforms. That is, taking their older platforms, sprucing them up a bit and handing them to the lesser divisions while developing the high tech stuff for itself

But the LX platform is NOT a Mercedes-Benz platform. The Chrysler LX vehicles share some parts (transmission design and some electronics) with last-generation E-Class models, but they don't share platforms.

[Flybrian]

But the LX platform is NOT a Mercedes-Benz platform. The Chrysler LX vehicles share some parts (transmission design and some electronics) with last-generation E-Class models, but they don't share platforms.

[post="64205"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Crossfire.

And its really DCX's own fault if people think the Pacifica and LX cars are hand-me-downs because of that whole tepid 'American Design meets German Engineering' crap they broadcast a few years ago.

[Hudson]

Crossfire.

And its really DCX's own fault if people think the Pacifica and LX cars are hand-me-downs because of that whole tepid 'American Design meets German Engineering' crap they broadcast a few years ago.

Crossfire was a current Mercedes-Benz platform when it was introduced...and has been said to be the last time you see that much Mercedes-Benz in a Chrysler product.

I don't think it's a problem that people think they're getting Mercedes-Benz' on the cheap by buying Chrysler. It's a positive misconception for Chrysler to have. Could be worse...Mercedes-Benz buyers could believe that the R-Class is a "hand-me-up" from the Pacifica.

[enzl]

Read this in a recent car mag, can't remember which.  Basically, Mercedes is collecting and restoring some of their classic models at specialized shops.

For the longest time, I've felt Cadillac should do this.  My family has had 3 beautiful old Caddies over the years- a 64 Coupe DeVille, a 65 Sedan DeVille, and a 75 CDV.  Ours were all in great shape (dad was a bodyman/mechanic, so that helped) as long as we owned them, but I've always seen similar old Caddies that are just sad to behold- belching smoke, rusting to pieces, missing pieces, etc.  I always thought that, out of respect for the brand, Cadillac should buy out all those old cars, restore the ones that can be saved, and put the rest out of its misery.  Im my eyes, having all these clapped-out rotting hulks limping around w/ the Cadillac crest on them (the ones that haven't rusted off, anyway) takes something away from the brand's heritage and future.

Imagine buying a "brand-new" 75 Coupe DeVille at a Cadillac dealer, full factory warranty, fit/finish, and performance.  I'm a Pontiac man first, then Oldsmobile, then Cadillac, but I might move Heaven and Earth to get my hands on a new 65 SDV like my father drove...

[post="63986"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think its a great idea...(something this board needs more of)

If you treat the program as a marketing/advertising expense, rather than a money-making venture, it has alot of merit.

I disagree with the above posts that regard this as cost-prohibitive....How much will it cost GM to place the GMT-900's in NYE celebrations or link the Escalade to the Super Bowl? MB's of 20-40 years ago are not 'less complex' than the average Caddy. The problem might be finding 20 yr. old Caddy's worth restoring (I mean, who wants a 'brand new' 86 Eldo?) OTOH, an original 76 Seville (on the Nova platform) would be interesting, and, not too expensive.

[Spike]

I think that this only reminds the public where Cadillac used to be. Cadillac needs to convince everyone that their current products have the same stature as their classics. What does this say to the buying public? Our products used to be great, why not buy our new stuff. I think they need to spend their time and resources promoting their current products. The original Zeppelin T.V. ads were great. They would highlight Cadillacs of the past then spotlight the new breed of cars. The focus was not entirely on old products. As was stated previously this has the potential to be a great loss. While being accounted for as an advertising expense, it does not promote new Cadillac products. This is reminiscent of the Zarella era. Instead of having a product driven portfolio, just sell the brand. I do like the fresh thinking that brings ideas like this out. In the long run it can be extremely beneficial to GM.

[Hudson]

I think that this only reminds the public where Cadillac used to be.  Cadillac needs to convince everyone that their current products have the same stature as their classics.

Good point, but I'm not sure I took it the way you meant it.

You don't need to remind buyers of Cadillacs of the just pre-Northstar era. Like pointed out above, why restore a 1986 Eldorado or a 1982 valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car? And even the 1970s Eldorados and deVilles are a bit too old-school Cadillac to help generate new buyers today.

The thing about old Mercedes-Benz models is that they remind buyers of when Mercedes-Benz was known for their engineering and their solid vehicles. Until you get into the early 1960s (perhaps as late as the first FWD Eldorado) and late 1950s, you're not going to show potential buyers anything in the Cadillac lineup that would impress them.

[the_yellow_dart]

I thought the Pacifica was just a slightly redone Caravan??

[Hudson]

I thought the Pacifica was just a slightly redone Caravan??

More than "slightly," but yes they're related.

[balthazar]

enzl=>>"MB's of 20-40 years ago are not 'less complex' than the average Caddy."<<
They absolutely are. Cadillacs on average have much more power equipment than most mercedes of the same vintage (I am talking about the 50-70s). And what about the amount of stainless & chrome trim? How about square footage of sheetmetal? Even something as simple as the gas cap supports my point:
1965 Mercedes fuel filller:

1941 Cadillac fuel filler:

Once you get into the '80s, mercedes begins to match Cadillac's equipment level, but (see below....

>>"The problem might be finding 20 yr. old Caddy's worth restoring (I mean, who wants a 'brand new' 86 Eldo?)"<<
No one, but an '80s mercedes is likewise of strictly limited appeal.

>>"OTOH, an original 76 Seville (on the Nova platform) would be interesting, and, not too expensive."<<
A 1st gen Seville is a great choice, but it is NOT - contrary to popular opinion- "on the Nova platform".

[tmp]

The 230 SL is gorgeous- and a perfect example of Balthazzar's point Look at some the equipment that was either standard or available on a '65 Cadillac: Power Steering and brakes Hydra-Matic Cruise control Comfort Control HVAC (updated to modern coolant) Power Seats, door locks, windows and vents Auto levelling Twilight Sentinel Tilt & telescoping wheel Inside remote mirrors about thirty-seven cigarette lighter that most people would want to use as power ports about 8oo lbs of chrome-plated trim, and thirty different colors of different cloths and leather upholstery. None of this was even available on a 230 SL

[enzl]

enzl=>>"MB's of 20-40 years ago are not 'less complex' than the average Caddy."<<
They absolutely are. Cadillacs on average have much more power equipment than most mercedes of the same vintage (I am talking about the 50-70s). And what about the amount of stainless & chrome trim? How about square footage of sheetmetal? Even something as simple as the gas cap supports my point:
Gotcha, can't argue about electric doodads, but...MB had mechanicals that, for the most part, are more complex and, more importantly, were made in smaller quantities, thus making their restoration a large a task, and, in the 80's, you had ABS and airbags that simply didn't arrive in Caddy products until later.
Once you get into the '80s, mercedes begins to match Cadillac's equipment level, but (see below....

>>"The problem might be finding 20 yr. old Caddy's worth restoring (I mean, who wants a 'brand new' 86 Eldo?)"<<
No one, but an '80s mercedes is likewise of strictly limited appeal.
I think an SL, SLC, SEC or original G might be of interest to some, certainly moreso than the Cimmaron, no?
>>"OTOH, an original 76 Seville (on the Nova platform) would be interesting, and, not too expensive."<<
A 1st gen Seville is a great choice, but it is NOT - contrary to popular opinion- "on the Nova platform".
It was a 'modified' version. May I ask, if not the Nova, what was its' basis?

[post="64400"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_%28automobile%29

If you need a reference. Right under the heading:
Low points, and the beginning of a recovery


More media bias?


http://www.libertysoftware.be/cml/trivia/s...ist/history.htm

(Although this one does say the 'heavily modified' X-body platform was refered to a a K-body. Still a Nova in drag, however) Edited December 29, 2005 by enzl

[razoredge]

:lol: OMG, listen to the import lovers pull the lowlyest Caddys out and ignore the cheap Mercedes. So very typical !

I spent some time in a 230 SL this summer, excellent car and I always loved them but this was the first I drove one and spent time in one. Compared to my H & C bodied GM's it was a pickup truck with sporty looks that could go topless and had aluminum and upper camshafts around the engine. At one point it was not running correctly and the girl spent 1500 at the dealer for a tune up.......so yes you are right they can add up a pile of money.......fast ! However compared to the great Cadillacs they are sparten.

The man hours restoring an elaborate Cadallic compared to man hours in what ever Mercedes would never compare. I do believe Mercedes would make up the cost difference in 'gold" plated pieces however.

BUT ENOUGH OF THAT - IT WASNT THE POINT !

The idea is a great one but as Balthazar was trying to point out is complex. First you would want to find good examples to keep the man hours down and time spent trying to hunt down perfect trim pieces ect. These good examples would cost plenty as it was. Restorations are extremely expensive because they are labor and material intensive, anyone that has ever got involved would know. Then theres the current US standards and selling an old Caddy as a new car is impossible, repowering to current standards extremely costly as well. Its a really tricky situation and best left to the great restoration people and Barrett Jackson. Then most dealers would not want to dedicate showroom space to a priceless classic Caddy that you would have to worry about getting scratched or any other number of problems with old cars sitting around.

Great idea that is mind and wallet boggling. GM should do more to show its more glorious history with its great collections and has had shows on SPEED. They did the 100 years of Buick tour, great big huge centenial car shows.....you name it. But as we have seen on this site, showing the variety of old GM's has met mixed results. sixty8, Harley, Balthazar, myself on occasions and a few others have displayed some great examples and there is usually more mocking or just no interest. We saw the mocking in this post. Id take a 81 Eldorado over any 81 Mercedes and 77/78/79-85 is not my era, my least favorite in fact but the Eldorado is quite American classy, also that era of Eldo, Riv, Toro sold like hot cakes. Yet the site is full of mockers.

So my conclusion to the man that had the idea and made this post is........

all that, and what for ?

[Flybrian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_%28automobile%29

If you need a reference. Right under the heading:
Low points, and the beginning of a recovery
More media bias?

[post="64473"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Please don't quote Wikipedia as a real solid authority on facts. Its only as accurate as its participants and I've seen tons of errors in many of the car sections.

[Drew Dowdell]

But the LX platform is NOT a Mercedes-Benz platform. The Chrysler LX vehicles share some parts (transmission design and some electronics) with last-generation E-Class models, but they don't share platforms.

[post="64205"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There's plenty of Benz, mostly of the E-Class variety, in these large machines. The aluminum five-link rear suspension on all 300s is based on the E-Class design, but the 300 has a wider track and bigger wheels and tires, with a steel cradle in place of the E's aluminum one.

Link

The new 300C and Dodge Magnum both share the Chrysler LX platform, which features components derived from the previous-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class. Such components include the suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic's design, and a derivative of the 4-Matic AWD system.

Link

[Hudson]

There's plenty of Benz, mostly of the E-Class variety, in these large machines. The aluminum five-link rear suspension on all 300s is based on the E-Class design, but the 300 has a wider track and bigger wheels and tires, with a steel cradle in place of the E's aluminum one.

Link

The new 300C and Dodge Magnum both share the Chrysler LX platform, which features components derived from the previous-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class. Such components include the suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic's design, and a derivative of the 4-Matic AWD system.

Link

All of that goes to back up my point. It has some Mercedes-Benz parts and some parts derived from Mercedes-Benz designs, but the platform is NOT a Mercedes-Benz platform.

[Hudson]

>>"OTOH, an original 76 Seville (on the Nova platform) would be interesting, and, not too expensive."<<
A 1st gen Seville is a great choice, but it is NOT - contrary to popular opinion- "on the Nova platform".

So you're saying that the 1975-1979 Seville rode on a unique platform unrelated to the Chevrolet Nova?

[enzl]

So you're saying that the 1975-1979 Seville rode on a unique platform unrelated to the Chevrolet Nova?

[post="64640"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

These guys just hate to be wrong. Don't take it personal. I try to enjoy the wittier replies and ignore the hate.

If you dare criticise the great and powerful, do no wrong General, they get their panties in a bunch.

As for the above regarding the restoration of old Caddies, I would assume that if anyone could produce or tool old parts, it would be the original manufacturer. If the argument is going to be the relative merits of which MB's vs. which Caddies are WORTH restoring, I know I'm never even going to get a begrudging acknowlegement that I might be right. To argue that MB didn't produce vehicles in the last 50 years that are as worthy of restoration (as any vehicle, including Caddy) is rediculous. Additionally, I stand by my original statement that post-1979, there are many more desireable MB models than Caddies...check out Hemmings or any other old school sales co.'s for firm evidence based on availability and pricing.

[Flybrian]

Allright guys...who cares about Mercedes? Its the Cadillac forum!

How about which Cadillacs do you feel would even be worthy of restoration? What would you select as good 'image' cars to showcase/sell at dealerships?

[Hudson]

Allright guys...who cares about Mercedes? Its the Cadillac forum!

How about which Cadillacs do you feel would even be worthy of restoration? What would you select as good 'image' cars to showcase/sell at dealerships?

As mentioned earlier, the 1967 Eldorado. Also the earlier Eldorado Biarritz and any V12 or V16 Cadillac. Perhaps (going out on a limb) the 1976 Eldorado convertible and the revived Eldorado convertibles of the 1980s. And the 1949 Cadillacs.

[enzl]

As mentioned earlier, the 1967 Eldorado. Also the earlier Eldorado Biarritz and any V12 or V16 Cadillac. Perhaps (going out on a limb) the 1976 Eldorado convertible and the revived Eldorado convertibles of the 1980s. And the 1949 Cadillacs.

[post="64682"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'd add the 76 to 79 Sevilles to have an affordable classic. I think that some of the outrageous tailfin-era convertibles and perhaps some pre-80's Limos might also be viable, as you always see Old RR's around at prom and weddings.

It also might be interesting to provide factory support to those that restore cars now. Perhaps even as an informational clearinghouse to connect collectors and suppliers of parts. It might enhance the heritage of Caddy and, if this info is available via a kiosk or print form via dealers, you might get a few eyes on the new product who might not otherwise do so.

[Mach5GTP]

Thanks to FlyBri for wrestling this train back on track! As to why Cadillac should do this: simply put, old Caddies seem to become beaters, winter cars that nobody cares about and thus lets fall to pot. How many Mercedes (since this was "their idea" as I first posted) do you see in that role? Fewer than Caddies, I'm sure. It just seems to me that having old Cadillacs once again prowling the roads, like Jurassic Park T-Rexes, could be a boost to the company- not so much in "image", but in "perceived prestige", I'll call it. To clear the roads of clunker Caddies, to the point of rarely seeing any Cad at all, new or old, in less than good-to-excellent shape, would, I think, create an image of Cadillac's exclusivity and quality in the motoring public's mind. I hope I'm getting my point across. There certainly are many Cads that would not be worth involving in this project- or discussion-, such as virtually all the less-than-full-size efforts from the 80s and later, to name a few. I'm talking about the 70-80s SDVs and CDVs, from the heady days when Cadillac called itself- and maybe even was- "The Standard of the World". (Am I remembering that right? Maybe that was much earlier. :huh: ) Personally, I'd love to see even some mid-60s cars get this treatment, even tho they are virtually gone from the roads, even in the beater capacity. Simply put, I think it would be a tremendous draw to dealerships if there were limited numbers of restored classic Cadillacs sitting alongside the latest/greatest offerings. More thoughts please! :)

[pow]

Better yet, why not modernize an ancient Caddy? Keep the shell, but give it modern suspension, modern electronics, modern luxuries, modern safety features, a modern interior, and a modern powertrain.

[Flybrian]

Better yet, why not modernize an ancient Caddy? Keep the shell, but give it modern suspension, modern electronics, modern luxuries, modern safety features, a modern interior, and a modern powertrain.

[post="64801"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That would be a magnificent thing to do to a 1967 Eldorado.

[balthazar]

These guys just hate to be wrong. Don't take it personal. I try to enjoy the wittier replies and ignore the hate. If you dare criticise the great and powerful, do no wrong General, they get their panties in a bunch.

You didn't criticize, Jimmy Neutron, you made an erroneous statement. Or indeed did you mean it as a backhanded criticism??
The Seville's initial development began with the X-body chassis, this is true. However, the R&D was so extensive, involving nearly every component of the body & chassis that it was mandated to have a unique code. The Seville's body is likewise summilarily dismissed as a 'Nova body' when my research has shown the two to only share portions of the floor pan and door hinges.... yet you'll read otherwise in more than one source. Ask yourself why. Did you know that the target price of the Seville, back when the program started, was $7500? Actual price after :rolleyes: a complete Nova chassis was slid underneath :rolleyes: somehow made it's way to $12K+. Ask yourself why.

...which MB's vs. which Caddies are WORTH restoring, I know I'm never even going to get a begrudging acknowlegement that I might be right. To argue that MB didn't produce vehicles in the last 50 years that are as worthy of restoration...

Who said this?? If you are thinking it was me, read my statement again:

>>"The problem might be finding 20 yr. old Caddy's worth restoring (I mean, who wants a 'brand new' 86 Eldo?)"<<
No one, but an '80s mercedes is likewise of strictly limited appeal.

In other words, older, '50s & '60s mercedes and Cadillacs will by & large always be more valuable & collectible than '70s and '80s equivalents. Point was- if this is going to be done, pick vehicles that are of significant collector interest. A '60s mercedes would be much more interesting than a mid-'80s. Do you find that fact to be "hate"?

P.S. : I was forced to register at wikipedia to correct numerous entries... tho the one that sparked my action was the prolific member who argued with me that he "had read somewhere" that the '48 Tucker had a V-6... instead of the flat 6 it does. Not exactly obscure information to verify. Wikipedia, as FlyBrian stated, is only as good as it's input, which is not unilaterally reliable, unfortunately.

[balthazar]

Gotcha, can't argue about electric doodads, but...MB had mechanicals that, for the most part, are more complex and, more importantly, were made in smaller quantities, thus making their restoration a large a task, and, in the 80's, you had ABS and airbags that simply didn't arrive in Caddy products until later.

Cadillac had airbags & ABS in the 1970s.

[razoredge]

These guys just hate to be wrong. Don't take it personal. I try to enjoy the wittier replies and ignore the hate.

If you dare criticise the great and powerful, do no wrong General, they get their panties in a bunch.

[post="64655"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What the hell is this guys problem ? Ive seen a few of these posts :unsure:

Where was there any hate ?

Where was anyone wrong ?

This is a GM site and some of us arent here to listen to a bunch of anti GM bull, what dont you get ?

Like I said, just fixate on that old Seville or the Cimeron and make large of it, then throw mud on the one that says BS and twist what was said.

Why do these people come here ! Why ! I'd say the answer lies right between the lines in the attitude of this post

These guys just hate to be wrong. Don't take it personal. I try to enjoy the wittier replies and ignore the hate.

If you dare criticise the great and powerful, do no wrong General, they get their panties in a bunch.

For quite a few years we had beater Mercedes running around these parts. No one wanted them, they were cheap, just like old Caddys.

I have a friend with the 280 SL
I have a friend that had the rare 83 ???550 SLC, I forgot the proper numbers, it was the 500#'s, low mile, near perfect, he bought a C5 and sold the Mercedes at a loss, however he made a easy 6000 on a 63 Corvette convertable
My sister and brother in law have two now, not beaters, their in Knoxville.......their 16 year old son just bought a 68 Toronado for his first play toy........hmm ? They were really really impressed with our LSS, we went for a long drive into the Blueridge, they took the LSS and kids, we took his C4 with the top off, they just loved that LSS.

Surely there was some great Caddys between the 67 Eldorado and the 76 convertable. I believe the poster said something about mid 60's Coupe Devilles. How about the ultimate pimpmobile ? early 70's Eldorado, all pimped out to would be sooo cool, a very important part of that period Americana :P

empowas idea about updated I believe is the only way it could be done, the cars would have to meet all regulations. The improved gas mileage would be a sales factor too, but now you dont have a true Cadillac. Its still not economically feasible however, 30 years ago would have been the time to begin to do reconditioned cars, with todays money problems it just wouldnt fly.

[Flybrian]

Razor, you really need to calm down in these threads. I'm very serious. This tit-for-tat time has been over.

[razoredge]

Me ?

[balthazar]

I know exactly how Razor feels. It's not so much what is said as how it's said.

Pontiac was given a '64 GTO by the original owner within the last about 10 years, and they restored it EXACTLY as it came off the line (leaving certain unpainted parts bare, which meant they began to flash oxidize in short order). This was just 1 car, a keeper for Pontiac's large collection of significant vehicles.

Nissan did something like this for a short while: buying, reconditioning & selling 240Zs. I believe the venture was discontinued due to the financial loss the program ran quickly into, not sure.

I think the first gen Seville and the '67-70 Eldorado are 2 excellent choices for a limited factory-reconditioning program, but I disagree with retro-fitting everything to modern standards. Now we're talking about a potential $15K value '67 costing $50-60K to upgrade everything. And the interior??? Completely defeats the purpose to change out the interior... I could maybe see the motor & trans, but otherwise keep most everything factory or forget it. Edited December 30, 2005 by balthazar

[enzl]

[quote name='balthazar' date='Dec 29 2005, 11:15 PM']
I know exactly how Razor feels. It's not so much what is said as how it's said.



Apparently, I'm hurting people's feelings, so, I suppose an apology of some sort is in order. Tone is a two-way street, but I'm willing to accept my share of blame.


I'm concerned that its a viewpoint issue, to some degree, but, as its been made clear, its your site.

[Guest Rawja]

DOH! newbie error.... sorry :blink: Edited December 30, 2005 by Rawja

[razoredge]

[quote name='enzl' date='Dec 29 2005, 10:29 PM']
[quote name='balthazar' date='Dec 29 2005, 11:15 PM']
I know exactly how Razor feels. It's not so much what is said as how it's said.
Apparently, I'm hurting people's feelings, so, I suppose an apology of some sort is in order. Tone is a two-way street, but I'm willing to accept my share of blame.
I'm concerned that its a viewpoint issue, to some degree, but, as its been made clear, its your site.

[post="64979"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]

"hurting feelings" more tongue in cheek. No hurt feeling, just anger (speaking for myself only), we are not a bunch of whimpy lightweights. Its got more to do with the lack of respect. Its all about respect with me, show respect and I will, show disrespect and I will. There was no poor tone shown early in this thread.

appologys are easy, but so is respect

[enzl]

"hurting feelings" more tongue in cheek. No hurt feeling, just anger (speaking for myself only), we are not a bunch of whimpy lightweights. Its got more to do with the lack of respect. Its all about respect with me, show respect and I will, show disrespect and I will. There was no poor tone shown early in this thread.

appologys are easy, but so is respect

[post="65200"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm not going to get into it, but I don't believe I've been disrespectful, I've just made the mistake of not sharing the majorities' opinion.

If this is the way that contrary opinion is treated here, then its no wonder I'm in the great minority. I find the 'anger' I've created a telling sign...I mean, if you think I'm an idiot, or someone sent here just to bother you, why would you give me the satisfaction of telling me I made you angry? If the goal is to have an open conversation about things automotive, isn't it more constructive to have an opposing point of view?

I never accussed anyone of being a 'lightweight' (I'm assuming intellectual), however, if you're going to make statements that are factually incorrect and I politely correct it---ie the mid-Seventies Seville was based (however loosely) on the Nova--yes, they spent lots of money and called it a K, but at the end of the day, the Nova was the starting point--I left 2 links indicating that was the case (I'm working, so I don't have the time to vet every source, but I did find a quick two)

as I said, If I've offended, I'm genuinely sorry for doing so. If I overreacted to posters attacking my position, I'm sorry for that too.


Any further banter to this effect can be accomplished via the personal message system on the board. I'm done talking about it.

[balthazar]

...ie the mid-Seventies Seville was based (however loosely) on the Nova--yes, they spent lots of money and called it a K, but at the end of the day, the Nova was the starting point--I left 2 links indicating that was the case (I'm working, so I don't have the time to vet every source, but I did find a quick two) as I said, If I've offended, I'm genuinely sorry for doing so.

I for one wasn't offended in the least.
But you have to understand how your post read.
>>"...Seville (on the Nova platform)"<< is completely different than saying >>"based (however loosely)"<<. It's like identifying a fine art painting as a 'blank stretched canvas' instead of recognizing what the final product is. The Seville's engineering start is hardly the point relative to the production car, right? Aren't we talking about the production car in this case? Most people (not neccesarily you however) only focus on the 'blank canvas' of the Seville's frame's origin because they have a dismissive attitude and a tendancy (often inadvertantly due to quoting popular opinion) to belittle General Motors' product. This is a way to do so while still being technically 'correct', but it's still misleading and in a way; disrespectful. One is free and clear to disrespect all one wants, but if in doing so bases such on inaccuracies, those comments are likely to be called into question. Nothing personal, enzl.

BTW- the Seville wikipedia entry is one I also had to correct, but 'regulars' there who apparently have some sort of imaginary reps as 'all-knowing' changed it back, I believe. Obviously, I need to go & stick a sharp stick in there again... Edited December 30, 2005 by balthazar

[Sixty8panther]

Although the 76-79 Seville is a fine car I'm sure, I also dismiss it as a dolled up Chevy. I wouldn't say it was litteraly a dolled up Chevy but the styling has never impressed me. Although they went to FWD in 1980 I love the Bustle-back styling a LOT better than the plain jane '70s Seville. That having been said ENZL, do not get hostile... esp. towards a member like Balthazar. I've been on this board for a year and he is one of the few people on here that when he speaks, I listen. The man is a Car-guy's car guy. I make the mistake of getting hostile too sometimes but if a knowlegable person like Balthazar corrects me I don't get hostile. He's an automotive encyclopedia wiht an amazing track record.

[pow]

Sounds a lot like the Ridgeline comments... "its baesd on a freeking minivan plattform."

[CaddyXLR-V]

Sounds a lot like the Ridgeline comments... "its baesd on a freeking minivan plattform."

[post="65522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I was thinking the same thing. But that doesn't make me like the Ridgeline :)

[pow]

I was thinking the same thing. But that doesn't make me like the Ridgeline :)

[post="65524"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

At least we now know that it's disrespectful. :AH-HA_wink:

[razoredge]

At least we now know that it's disrespectful.  :AH-HA_wink:

[post="65533"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

These guys just hate to be wrong. Don't take it personal. I try to enjoy the wittier replies and ignore the hate.

If you dare criticise the great and powerful, do no wrong General, they get their panties in a bunch.

[capriceman]

I heard that GM Performance is buying cars to store and put into a musem. also put perfoemance classics out there at shows like one i seen in a picture that was givin to me that i wont share because i was told not to was an 1956 Caddy that has a 572 with twin trubos and nitrous injection. that will be at a show somewhere in the US this Year as "some guys car" to see if it gets enough attention to make it a tent at shows to have old built up cars done buy GM Performance to sell tickets to for people to get like pictures taken in it.

[balthazar]

A classic Cadillac with a Chevrolet motor? Not happy with that choice from GM Performance. Why not a blown 500 with the new Tiger heads?