SAmadei

I tried to PM you with some specific details, but got rejected... not sure whats up with that. The problem with getting 6-8 welded studs is getting them dead perpendicular... I'm never perfect perfect. Its also hard to hit 8 drilled holes perfectly... unless I make up a template ahead of time. And I'd have to drill the holes slightly oversize, whereas I prefer them to be fairly tight. I drilled the one part today... I was mostly one the mark, but some drill bit deflection caused problems. Plus the final hole missed more than I wanted, so I was doing some filing for awhile... but this was a thinner part than 1/4... I can't imagine doing this 6-8 times. Good news, after cutting the other squares off the part, I now have a template for future use. I think the larger part of this project is going to get postponed a bit, as some of the tooling and metal is getting pricy.

Speaking of welding... I could tack weld lug studs to the parts, but I can't do it on location... and this project has two parts... one needs only 2 bolts, the other potentially 6-8. I would feel OK with tack weldiing the 2 stud part, as I can likely drill the holes onsite accurately enough to drive it in... but even if I make two trips with the 6-8 stud part, one to drill the holes and one to return with the part with welded studs, I'm afraid that 6-8 studs will be impossible to line up perfectly and get driven in. I'm trying to think of any other bolts that would work like carriage bolts but not require a square hole... and can be sourced locally.

Hmm... so after much searching... Watts Bros sells the drill bits, but they have no website... you have to order over the phone. To drill a 7/16ths hole, you need... 1 No. 1 or 2 full floating chuck $233-$297 1 7/16 square drill $47.30 1 7/16 Square guide plate $41.69 1 7/16 square slip bushing $14.52 But I'd have to call to ensure the right parts, so those prices likely would change. Not sure this project is worth $350. I think I'm going to have to buy some long lug studs. Hopefully I can find lug studs with a largish head and decent hardness.

I'm not sure I see whats going on with the first video. The second video is just mind blowing... I can only assume there is more to it than I'm seeing. Any idea on pricing, or where one can get one... in general, I can't afford a tool like this right now, but considering I can "standardize" on 7/16ths, I can think of a million uses for a such a tool. As far as photos, so far its just a big plate of reinforcement steel. I want (hard) carriage bolts for security purposes. I think I need to wath those videos again... and try a few more Google searches.

I don't know it I''m sold on diesel, but we now have TWO CNG gas stations. I really need a CNG car/truck.

This is not exactly auto related, but I can see some instances where you might want it. I need to make some 7/16ths square holes in some 1/4 steel for carriage bolts on a project I am working on. My current idea was to drill 7/16th holes then use some kind of angled abrasive to notch the corners, but considering I need to do 6-10 of these holes, that could take some serious time. Plus I am no finding abrasives that will really suit my needs. I'm seeing different kinds of square punches online, but I assume these need a 100 ton press or something, and most do not list what thickness they will punch through. If anyone has a good idea, let me know. My backup plan is to use really long lug studs... but they really don't have as much head/shoulder to the "bolt" as I would like. Thanks in advance.

OK... want nearly present-day? Chevy Captiva, Chevy Equinox, GMC Terrain, Cadillac SRX, SAAB 9-4X... but why are you taking this out of context and arguing with someone who agrees with you? Couldn't agree more. You're arguing with someone who was making a different point... I feel GM is blowing opportunity by limiting platform engineering and what segments its different nameplates compete in. I feel having a few flavors allowed GM the ability to reach different tastes... if there wasn't 4 versions of the '84 Monte Carlo, GM would have never had the #1 selling car in American for a time... the Cutlass Supreme... and the Regal and Grand Prix which also were sales successes to lesser degrees. But DF said... the Camry didn't need 4 versions to become a sales leader... at which point, there have been 5 flavors of Camry lately... (and others in the past sold as Holdens, Diahatsus and lesser Toyotas.) Now you are arguing with my illustration to DF, not my opinion on the subject at hand. So, again. We agree.

I think you are missing part of the conversation here... The Grand Prix, Regal/Century, Intrigue aren't branded as Impalas and have no effect on Impala sales numbers... but some would argue that all W-bodies are the pretty much the same car.

Understandable... but you are the person paying for it, and therefore the person the developers listen to.

Metropolis II has been unveiled in Los Angeles, at the LACMA for a reported 10 year stay. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/chris-burden-metropolis-ii-on-view-january-14.html Since this requires someone to run the display, I question if this is "performance art." ;-) There is also a longer video on Youtube that you can easily search for.

Really? I guess it took 5. Lexus ES... Toyota Camry... Toyota Highlander... Toyota Solara...Toyota Venza. If you argue about the past Camry's, I'll bring up it's inbred family tree or that most of the Toyota nameplates mean 'Crown', anyway. Toyota uses it own flavor of obfustication.

Top Gear has a quick article where the Brits test a old Dart (teechnically a '70 Swinger), and while they call it 'rubbish', they'd prefer to own the old one, for its cool factor. I'd love to see video of Clarkson testing an old Dart and a new one. http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/Driven-the-original-Dodge-Dart-2012-1-11

You're not getting a Nor'easter. You might have a blizzard coming, but not a Nor'easter... a Nor'easter is like a weak winter hurricane... where the center of the storm is mostly over the ocean, and it heads northeast with the gulf stream. You're too far inland to get much Nor'easter weather. You scared me, though... I had to drop my lunch and pull up the weather.

We live in an web era where opening a window or refreshing a whole page to view a photo isn't optimal. There has to be smoother gallery options. I also don't like how the gallery is resizing the images and loosing the aspect ratio. There should be options to maintain the aspect ratio.

I don't advocate a GM with 8 divisions and 90 nameplates, but there has to be some overlap. The Granite wasn't for me, but I thought it had good GMC potential. Sometimes you need to make a few versions of a car and see which one hits the mark. I think GM has pissed away markets with its current paranoia.

30 years later, it is easy to call these cars loud and rough... but one is judging from a viewpoint polluted by 20 years of these cars rattling around in decline and tainted by cars today that are so stealthy quiet that they are dangerous to blind pedestrians and stupid drivers whom are unclear if the car is running or not. Many 1984 cars were quite quiet and smooth when new or well maintained, but you can't expect that from low end offering, such as a Chevette. Not only that but some of us feel 1984 cars had all the safety equipment needed... some chrome bumpers to guard the car when parked and a decent, attentive driver when it was moving. I have yet to pop an airbag or trigger the ABS or TC in such a way that I would say 'saved me from an accident'. Size, dwindling engine choice and the sudden switch to FWD between 1980 and 1988 is when the trucks really started to get a head of steam and the manufacturers responded by 'civilizing' trucks. Once most trucks had the comfort options cars used to have, the truck trend spiked. It is quite true that trucks didn't have a lot of hp more than cars, they had enough. The difference between a 305 and a 350 is quite noticable, and with few exceptions, GM flat out refused to put a 350 in ANY car between 1980 and 1990, even though it was easy done by a shade tree mechanic with neglibile loss of economy or increase of emissions. Also, we talk of horsepower, but what really people feel when the car accelerates is torque. And trucks could still be optioned with higher torque 454 engines. Well, its fine if the gas taxes are used to build roads... but they usually aren't.

I agree with what you are saying here. After letting the 130R chew on my brain a bit more, I think I see what really doesn't work for me... the straight line from hood to window sills to trunk lid. No way can GM call this a Chevelle. No Chevelle ever was so straight. The early (and iconic) Novas were straighter in this area (little to no Coke bottle shape and barely a small kick up under the rear side windows), and are closer in position, size-wise to this design. Nova is a better name... using Chevelle on this would cause as much, or more, controversy as reviving the GTO name did. For the record, I love the Bentley coupe... and I feel its as close to a modern day '68-'72 muscle car (not Pony car) as we will see. A Chevelle design should be in this vein. I'm not hating on the upright rear glass... but quite frankly, its not that upright. Without a level, I'm guesstimating its at 50~55 degrees, whereas everything else is 20-35 degrees today, it seems. Get the angle up past 65 degrees and we are talking upright. I love fastbacks, but a true fastback needs a BACK... i.e., a trunk bigger than five inches. A few other comments... I like that someone nailed the Neon coupe appearance. The coupe, when it came out, was one of the first times a coupe design was more clumsy than the sedan... which is what this design telling. Comparing this roofline to the 1 series... even though I hate the 1 series, it has a better roofline. Comparisons of the 140 to the Eclipse are not valid... the basics of the Eclipse looked good... but Mitsu really dropped the ball on the front and rear ends in production. This design has stronger language front and back and much sharper rear quarter treatment, though the white treatment is hiding it in most photos.

The photo album is resizing the images and getting the aspect ratio screwed up. I don't think I care much for the car, but the photos make the car seem insignificant and the aspect ratio skew is really warping them.

Still doubt there is room for both... they should have just made both Alpha.

That is the most mixed up bunch of awkward styling I have seen since the 3000GT and the 1st gen LX Charger. Like the 140S, Chevy has to come up with a better grill setup. I like the concept, including the quasi-notchback roofline. But GM seems to have lost the ability to make a good looking coupe door cut. The front and rear look like a lot of the same ole' same ole' for Chevy concepts. If both are based on Alpha, as I understand, GM is only going to be able to build one, which is a real shame. Ideally, the 130R could make a new Nova (with a LOT of styling help), but the 140S should have been offered as a Pontiac.

Chevy has to rid themselves of the ugly bar across the grill. They are overemphasizing the grill on the front... and I'm not loving the Audi taillights. Make something with more detail. Overall, I like the shape a lot. To me, its what a futuristic car should look like. But judging from the proportions, is this really Alpha based? Unfortunately, it looks WAY too small for me to ever drive. I prefer the Pontiac version of the 140S...

If trunk space is really a concern for you, I can direct you across the showroom to the XTS. Trunk space there is huge. Not by my standards. The XTS also suffers from tall, stubby trunk syndrome.

If I had to guess, I'd say that tall, narrow wheel/tire combo makes the camber look much more extreme than it really is. It still, however, has a lot of camber, and perhaps Wiki can help... Given that the Brooklands surface is rough enough than cars are airborne at times, they probably needed all the handling help they could get.

Its great that its RWD, but I think the overall look is so-so. I don't like the steering wheel, which may be a completely new part, but to the average Joe, it looks too close to the wheel GM has been using on cars for what, 7 years? I also don't care for the horizontal vent setup that I agree with the others that GM is overusing. I don't like the completely nonexistant trunk... I also feel from the rear the car looks way too narrow. The front emblem is too large, and the bezel around it makes it look like a CTS part on a 3/4 scale CTS. The headlights look kinda gimmicky to me... especially the plastic strip reaching halfway to the windshield. This fad is just awful. The four grill setup is also looking like a copy of every other GM grill setup... including the Cruze/Malibu, if you remove the divider. One of those grills is going to get somewhat obscured when a front license plate is affixed. The greenhouse, the short trunk, headlights and grill setup make the car look very much like all GM's other sedan offerings... the only design feature unique here really is the space between the front door cut and front wheelwell. I prefer the CTS.

Yeah, the HAMB rocks. Lately, I've been pretty hooked on the Duke University Digital Collection... http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/collections/ Its not all cars, but the search will find a lot of outside billboards with copious old traffic and lots of brand specific advertising.