Blake Noble

Well, I guess we won't be having any more trivia threads now...

I'll take a crack at this. The '83 Ford Thunderturd was one of the earliest cars to have "aircraft-inspired" doorframes that wrapped into the roof to improve aerodynamics. As for which aircraft that was supposed to be cribbed from, I have no idea. Maybe a Cessna 172? However, I am confident this answer is probably definitely wrong.

Your PC ran into a problem and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete)

lol @ plebs in here not part of the apple master race

An error has occurred. To continue: Press Enter to return to Windows, or Press CTRL + ALT + DEL to restart your computer. If you do this, you will lose any unsaved information in all open applications. Error: OE: 016F: BFFS43VR Press any key to continue.

And here we go again...

OK... Look, I'm going to drop my act for a second here and give you a little advice. I hope you might consider it. And try and chill out. For your own sake. My advice is as follows: This is the internet. Not every comment you read on the internet is 100 percent serious business. It's great you've decided to invest your time on these forums. But I also genuinely hope that you don't take up sole residence here, or anywhere else online for that matter. Take care of yourself. If you feel the need to continue this conversation, do yourself a favor and find the strength to just let it go. None of this is really all that important. Now, as for the rest of you guys, how about that new Audi 200 Cadillac made for that car show all the rich douchebags go to?

1. Careful, now. Your rebuttal there tasted a trifle tu quoque. You aren't going to win here criticizing my criticism and questioning of your definition of "recent." I explained to you how I defined "recent." Then I asked for you to extend me the courtesy of sharing and explaining yours. Instead you gave me that stuttering waste of time. How about you give it another shot? 2. You are completely wrong about how the last-generation CTS coupe entered production. GM management had decided to build the car long before they showed the "concept" to the public. Per Motor Trend: Now, I know there's a chance you're going to click the link, read the article and make note of how Motor Trend claims the design of the CTS coupe "didn't change from Bob Munson's sketch." Then you'll probably want to come back and go, "See! CTS and blah, blah, blah." Well, about that... First, let's observe the sketch: "Unchanged" isn't exactly true. Per Motor Trend once again: So it seems the CTS coupe was intended to be an evolution of the Cien concept. And even if the design were intended to be a CTS coupe from the start, I can pick out a handful of differences: the glasshouse, the rear brake cooling duct, even the roofline. 3. Does it now? Seems to me like it's very valid in this discussion, especially considering the hole you somehow dug yourself into above. 4. Splitting hairs? Not really. You're acting as if a design does not or cannot change to enter production. And this whole discussion stems from this post, remember? I think I've went above and beyond in my response to you. 5. Uh... what was that? OK, I was trying to keep the discussion at a high standard here, but that... 6. Ooh! Going for ad hominem this time! You sassy boy, you! So we've suddenly switched from the first-gen SRX to the second now? OK then. Whatever, hoss. Both of you are trying too hard if your end goal is just to troll me.

Anyway, let's pick apart your post. Number one: You said "recent." The definition of "recent" can be very relative. Five to ten years fits my definition of "recent" if I'm thinking in terms of the automotive industry. Why? Most product cycles are, in fact, between five to seven, sometimes even ten years in length. Adding to that, a car debuting for, let's say, the 2014 model year would've been designed typically around 2008 to 2009, give or take a year going forward or back. Hence why I mentioned the Escalade (I'll quickly concede here that I made a typo in my earlier post; I meant to say third-generation Escalade, i.e. the GMT900-era model, and not second-generation) and SRX. Can you explain your reasoning for thinking in such short one to two or two to three year terms? I'm failing to see why I should... Number two: The CT6 did not have a concept precursor unless you'd like to count the Sixteen, Ciel or Elmiraj concepts. For the sake of your argument, you might want to reconsider that. Number three: Your post acts as if a GM designer comes up with one design for a car, sends it off to management and they just send it straight to the production line without a question or thought. Needless to say, that's not how things work. If that were the case, then the Cadillac XTS, for example, could've wound up looking like this: And yes, that was, in fact, a proposal for the XTS (more specially, the XTS "concept"). When I first posted that here four years ago everyone seemed to agree that it was a better design than what we wound up with. GM watered the XTS down too much. Number four: The Converj did become the Cadillac ELR with its most of its major design cues intact. But many small details changed on the way to the production line. The headlights, lower door sculpting and taillights are some of the big ones that jump out in my mind. Number five: Uhhhmmm... the Escala concept and the A7 already have a very similar fastback roofline and glasshouse, so I fail to see how the Escala could somehow be different if or when it goes to production. Well, there were actually even more radical and dramatic themes considered for the Vizion concept than what GM wound up rolling out at the Detroit Auto Show. One proposal I've seen had a more dramatic slope to the rear hatch and a blacked-out c-pillar treatment. Whether or not the SRX looks better than the Vizion is actually irrelevant. The point is, the Vizion concept looks far more radical than what GM wound up producing, hence it was "watered down."

Heh-heh. I bet you've never seen the original designs for the first-gen SRX or even the second-gen Escalade. (Spoiler warning: They were wayyyy more radical than what we wound up with.) Maybe in time, you will. Hopefully, on this site.

That sloping, fastback six-window roofline... That particular mix of straight lines and curves... That faux-ducktail trunklid... What I'm ultimately saying is, there's enough hackneyed design elements there that, when GM starts watering down the design for a production car, it's probably going to wind up looking like this: Well, OK, best case scenario, maybe this: Sure, the Escala has better proportions than the Chrysler 200 (thank goodness) or the Audi A7. And it had better, being built on a rear-drive platform and all. But there is nothing refreshing or unique about the rest of the design. It's boring and trite. The only thing that remotely says "Cadillac" about the entire design are the taillights. Take those away, and this could be any old thing.

It looks like a frigging Chrysler. There. I said it.

At one time, Daimler -- aka Mercedes -- basically owned Jeep. Know what they chose to build? This f@#king thing: Your argument is invalid. Go home. You are drunk.

Those cars are made in Canada, in FCA's Brampton, Ontario plant. Thus, they are not American made and are exempt from Marchionne's stupidity.

I'll just copy-repasta something I put on Facebook earlier today. Mark my words, if something (hint: its name sort of sounds like Maraschino) doesn't change at FCA, they will be bankrupt and begging and pleading for another bailout in the near future. If that's the case, this time I say let FCA eat cake.

FTFY.Also, your post was written like every other person aged over 45; written as if the entire world and everyone's existence revolves around why-oh-ew. Good day.

Can all you old men in here just hurry up and retire and get in a nursing home already? Weeping Christ. How much bickering, bitching and belly-aching did there have to be before someone could make one single on-topic post? Too damn much. We had to hit PAGE FRIGGING TWO first. So you don't like Pokemon Go. OK. Great. Good for you guys. So you don't like this "new generation" of stupid "Millenials." OK. Again, good for you guys. What in the hell has changed there? I installed the app on my phone, played it for a day and caught whatever, thought it was fun but decided my free time would be better used by trying to find work. But you don't see me marching in here, criticizing people for wanting to play the game in their free time. By the way, speaking of free time, if all you do in yours is complain about how someone spends theirs you need to: a.) find something productive to do yourself, and b.) mind your own damn business. I'm in my mid-twenties, if you were wondering. Part of this self-centered and stupid "Millenial" generation you guys love to hate. By the way, thanks for reminding me that I'm part of a screwed generation of people -- no thanks in part to you guys -- every time y'all voice your opinion.

Sure is Baby Boomer in here.

Been a long time gone, Constantinople...

Watch what you say about the Chrysler 2.2 'round these parts. I learned this lesson the hard way...

Just wanted to step in and point out questions three and five have possible additional correct answers. 3. In addition to Ranger, Citation and Pacer, Villager was a name used for one of Edsel's wagon models. The name would return on Mercury's first minivan, shared with Nissan. 5. Speaking of Mercury, we all know the hot Cougar for '69 (heh... hot... Cougar... '69) was the Eliminator. But interestingly enough, Jeep would offer an inappropriately named Eliminator package on the Comanche pickup truck in the 1980s.

Agreed.That's just good old fashioned common sense.