balthazar

Yeah BBL: let's all save our 'freak out' moxie for something significant..... like an absent telescopic steering wheel or something.

Not really an Impala fan. Too common IMO. Don't care for most Chevy cars from a standpoint of wanting to own one for the same reason.

It is, but Pontiac SDs were already quicker than that (again: given traction).

Nice overview. I have never owned a Wildcat, but my Invicta is of course the Wildcat's (meaner & edgier) ancestor. Only a few quasi-errors: the '62's main distiction from the Invicta was the vinyl-covered roof and the buckets/console (tho this later feature was optional on the 'victa beginning in '60). The 325/401 was the same from Invicta to Wildcat. Also- their quoted top speeds are all low- Buick 401s were always good for solidly over 120. And how could a 360/425 car only eclipse a 325/401 car by 2 MPH? Buick never went wild with gear ratios either; a range of .35 is traditional then- so that's not a valid factor.

I thought the Lansing Craft Centre was an outsourced facility. Is Linden already officially closed?

C&D got a '65 2+2 to hit 60 in 3.9 seconds. In subsequent retrospectives, they backpedaled & discounted their own results (an average of 4 runs), but in the like 8 page comparo ofthe Pontiac 2+2 and the ferrari 2+2, there was no waffling or second-guessing. It wasn't a ringer to the extent that C&D's '64 GTO had been (which was equipped with a RPO-unavailable 421), but it did have the nationally available Royal Bobcat tune package on it. With traction, these cars were brutally fast.

LA's right: it's a '65 2+2, an option package on the Catalina. All full-size '65s (Cat, GP, Star Chief, Bonne) had the exact same headlights, but the GP had unique grilles with grille-mounted running lights. In the rear the Cat had the taillights shown above, the SC & Bonne had lenses about twice as wide, and the GP again got unique full-width grilled-over taillights ('invisible' when not illuminated). The only external differences of the 2+2 option vs. the Cat (besides emblems) were the front fender louvers. Standard mill was the 4bbl Trophy 421.

Honda: 14.2 lbs/HP Dodge: 15.2 lbs/HP The power/weight ratio is dead on; so is comparing the MPG of these 2. Trim level/heirarchy has no scientific bearing in an economy comparison. I'm still waiting for someone to post that the civic's MPG numbers are a typo and it gets 27. Hell, my 136K 300CI F-150 gets 16 and I lay into the pedal everyday.

Power-retractable running boards? ;)

I was expecting Derham. Brunn, Bowham & Schwartz and Franay of Paris are some others, but all these were one-offs or extremely limited runs and not Cadillac-solicited nor catalogued, but customer-requested. Cadillac did not fancy their cars 'tampered' with by outside coachbuilders, many of whom produced designs either too radical or disharmonious to the factory design. I have seen countless pictures supporting clearly this. Of course that did not stop outside coachbuilders or outright customizers, as Cadillac has been nearly a life-long subject of the torch. It has been my impression that the Detroit-Fleetwood plant was distinct & free-standing well into the '70s. I need to research this point, at least for my own interest.

Well, I could do without the groove along the lower edges, esp behind the rear wheels, but the fender ports & the rounding of the rear end look very evolutionary to me. I also like the front-to-rear taper in the greenhouse. But the early reports on the actual '07 design are encouraging: the current CTS is my favorite Cadillac design.

Oh, I saw yours already! Looked fine at 1.5-in x 1.5-in.... which is just about exactly what I specified mine be posted here at. :lol:

Still groggy from about 8 hours of car talk.... how can someone so relatively young have so many stories?? Sixty8 is a great guy- I really had a ball. We checked out the '59 LeSabre, but in the 5 years since I saw it last, 80% of the floors have departed for lower pastures (it was under water from Hurricane Floyd of '99). I hope I have wisely diverted an impulse buy of a spine- & wallet-busting project.... but when we parted company, he was heading back the next day "for a few more pictures"..... :unsure: At the same place we checked over a '51 Packard, Nash Metro, a '48 Chrysler Town & Country convertible and a.... '68 Camaro. Oh, and something troubling for me: an appealing foriegn vehicle: a Renault Caravelle 2-dr of unknown year. Except for the blunt nose, what a neat little coupe, and I dug the rear engine and cooling scoops. And I thought finding parts for my '59 was tough. Not anticpating what undoubtedly will be a most unflattering picture of me later this week........

It'd sure as hell get my vote for '07- slicker than snot on a glass door knob!

Great post, griffon. I am unaware of any other Cadillac Series 75 coachbuilders after circa 1940 beyond one-offs tho- what did I forget? Fisher Body's all-steel shells were introduced for '35. It was the first, as the Turret Top eliminated the ubitquitous fabric insert for the main portion of the roof. This is where the claim to 'all-steel' is earned (for closed bodies: prior to that the only true all-steel bodies were roadsters). However, it should be noted that there was still some wood bracing inside the shell; radical strength & crash tests of the day proved the superiority of composite all-steel shells with wood bracing. One of the Fisher Body strength tests involved taking one of the best of the competition's "all-steel" body (actually 20% wood- too much and not ideally engineered) and one of their own Turret Tops, placed both on 45-degree inclined surfaces and applied a 9,000 load on one upper rear corner. The competitors shell deflected 11", all glass but the lower windshield broke (and that pane was sprung from it's frame) and all doors were crimped & inoperable. All panels were damaged and the shell was rendered unrepairable. The Fisher Body deflected only 4", only the windshield cracked and the overall damage was easily repairable in any competant body shop. During this period, Fisher had 1000 production body inspectors, but Cadillac employeed another team of body inspectors following up Fishers for even their Fisher-bodied Cadillacs. It should be pointed out that the Fleetwood facility was another in-house coachbuilder (for Cadillac)... I'm not sure but at least well into the '70s if not notably later. For a completely-owned division, it is interesting that Fisher had a lot of say in the design of upcoming proposals, assumedly from a standpoint of feasability. For many years I never realised they had any input beyond "We'll get right on it." A terrifically interesting chapter in the General Motors story, and an underappreciated one at that. There must be an authoritative book on Fisher somewhere- I must track it down.

Bank on it.

>>"we each have our own tastes.... :cool:"<< For some reason, I am getting increasing responses telling me my opinion is just my opinion. Wonder what's going on there? Took a long look at this site: >http://www.autosite.se/sonett/Sonettguide/kopguidesonett.htm< It was one of the 'flippfront' ones I saw once: It scarred me for years afterward. It was something new to me, I certainly gave it an open-minded walkaround (numerous times), yet could not find a redeeming line on it anywhere. Somewhere in Sweden, 1956: Somewhere in the U.S., 1956:

My father did a LOT of work on the F/A-22 and he has 'watched over it' since he retired a few years ago. Thanks for the pics- he'll enjoy them.

Escalade looks great- very upscale. Makes that droopy-eyed hulk from nissan/infiniti look 15 years old. 403 HP- nice!

I had never heard or seen the '50s sonett until these boards in the past year. In that it was hand-build outside the factory without factory involvment, the '50s sonett was not a saab- by what definition could it have been? IMO, the '60s sonett is one of the most kit-car-ish looking 'creations' I have ever walked around. I find it very difficult to believe that there is any degree of vocality calling for another based on how that one turned out... but then again there is probably a club somewhere for yugos and there is no accounting for taste. Again personally, I find it nearly induces blindness....

Are you sure?? farrari has built many shoddy-quality vehicles in their near-past. I remember reading a link to a ferrari owner forum where a common complaint was paint blowing off the nose while driving. Among other problems. Quite frankly ferrari has had more consistantly awful interior design than many other makes from all walks of automotive life.

Sixty8- I'll meet up with you, bro. If that LeSabre from the auction is in Bell Meade, that's 25 minutes from my house. No way would I pass up another opportunity to check it out again. I'll be in touch.

Television & radio voiceovers pronounce Jaguar as a 3-syllable word, not 2. JAG-oo-are.

ImPALa. I have yet to hear it pronounced 'imPAULa' in natural conversation-- such sounds like a speech impediment to me.

'Sportcombi' is an awful name.