balthazar

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....

Shortly before the Mustang debuted, another make's product featured the same model name (albeit only locally) on a performance-built model. This vehicle (quantity built unknown) is terrifically obscure, I'm afraid. Can anyone name it? Within 1 year of the above mystery vehicle (a clue! for an impossible answer!), FoMoCo bought the rights to the name of a Mustang cousin from yet another company involved in motor vehicles. What was the name in question & what did they manufacture?

Theoretically, it can but in reality, it guarantees nothing. All those dimensions are exactly the same between a CTS and a CTS-V yet there is a handling difference. And how many smaller cars does the 'uncompetitively-large' CTS-V outhandle? IMHO, I still think you place way too much emphasis on this matter, LA; emphasis NOT echoed by the buyer.

Sheetmetal-wise: the 2 shared trunk pans- that's it. Just about every single sub-system was likewise brand new or re-engineered. Cadillac did not price the Seville at a then unprecedented $12K because it wanted to; the ground-up engineering & tooling forced it (the Seville was conceived as a $7500 model). It's another journalistic urban legend that hasn't yet been beaten down by the truth, unfortunately.

First gen Seville is approximately 95% unique and 5% X-Body. Why is it then that approximately 90% of the time I'm still reading misinformed statements like "gussied-up X-body"??

RE the bmw above: FlyBri you're right on the money. It's an 'econocar' in the luxury car field: dangling fogs, lots of exterior plastic, poorly integrated bumpers, exposed wipers, archaic round headlights, giant afterthought signals... some of it is due to 'styling' while some is just trying to catch up to modern hardware & integration standards. The whole package just comes off (within the segment) as cheap & dated.

Right: we disagree. And the overhype on foriegn makes is enough to turn me away from all imports.

\ I haven't seen any T1000s in years, but for some reason I have seen nearly a half-dozen Chevettes this past year...

I know, but the point is: the perception difference & the actual difference today is very small to nil in most areas. Also- 'refinement' & 'ATD' are widely interpretable and it still pales (talking ATD here) to vintage vehicles.

Problem is, if you've experienced vintage American autos, the "attention to detail" in modern foreign makes cannot compare, so for us, it all comes off as overblown hot air. Unfortunately, there's not enough of 'us' to turn around current erroneous perceptions.

Cadillac definately was thinking of mercedes in the '70s, as there were a number of internal and publication comparisons (in specs, anyway). And I have to agree with Oldsmoboi; the Seville was a big hit that definately caught the attention of mercedes & bmw (after all, Cadillac was at it's historical & dominating sales high in the late '70s). \ In the late '70s, mercedfes & bmw were changing very quickly to become more & more Cadillac-like (or suited to the American luxury buyers tastes, if you prefer). merceds & Cadillac at least competed very well together then, Cadillac in general equalling or exceeding mercedes of the same price class in performance. BTW- no one in the mid-70s looked in the luxury class for handling, and those that claimed to and bought the 5-series were a miniscule minority. Also- the mercedes of today is a lot closer in execution & intent to the Cadillac of yesterday than the mercedes of yesterday. The Seville is the nicest & most appealing luxury car of the mid- to late-70s, IMO.

Primarily: perception. I see no great gaps in the suggested reasons up top.

I swear I haven't seen a honda, toyota or datsun made earlier than the early '80s in forever. Did see a '72 Polara this past weekend. What I always wonder about is hugely popular cars like the Pinto; haven't seen one of those in years & years either. (>Insert quip about exploding here<) I used to kinda maintain a 'cut-off' year in my head: the year back-to that you'd still see infrequently running around. I remember when it inched up thru the later '60s, then it seemed to leapfrog over most of the '70s up to '77. Now it's seems to be at about '87 or thereabouts. The only exception is '70s Darts; I still them every once in a while.

I... I've... touched this car while alone in a room with her, but I swear she said she was over 18!

I saw it last night, tho unfortunately the sound was on 'mute' and I didn't have the remote in hand- so I heard nothing. Visually it looked great but I immediately thought of the similar Hummer commercials and I wonder why a nearly identical effect was used for another division.

Yer Toro sounds awesome, razor!

Hm-mmm... not many 3-wheelers to chose from. The '48 Davis had some sort of legal troubles, defrauding, perhaps, but I don't recall any allegations of cross-dressing there. ....From a Motorcities site: >>"Although Davis raised enough money from franchises to build 17 of the three-wheelers, he was unable to deliver on time to would-be dealers. Although steadfastly maintaining his innocence, Davis was convicted on 24 counts of fraud in January 1951. His request for an appeal was denied and in July of 1952 he was sentanced to an 18-month prison term."<< I don't believe from what I read that the Davis was intended to be a 'scam', however. I don't think that's it.

'Chevy' Astro III EDIT: Oops- it ain't that, tho they could be sibling models in the same division: Astro III

Also: the only person's avatar I can see is my own.

For me: pics in people's sigs & posts show up, but every board 'button' is there with a red X for the graphic. "Fast Reply", "edit", "Profile Card", etc... all of those types including the banner have text (banner: no text) but no icons. Even the lil' blue hashes under Harley's "GXP Member" are missing.

Written lots, published nothing (beyond the 'letters' columns of periodicals). I have a rewrite of Christine about 75% done. Actually, I am compiling a submission package to solicite a job from a automotive reference book publisher right now. Keep your fingers crossed for me...