Blake Noble

Want a Holden Ute? You're 20,000 Signatures Away by black-knight, C&G Editor/Reporter 15th November, 2011 Yes, you read the header right. The weeping and teeth-gnashing could very well come to an end if you've pined for the Australian counterpart for the much beloved and long departed ElCamino. The same goes for any other car that, due to some sort of general incompetence, wasn't offered here: Alfas, Fiats, Vauxhalls and Opels ... the list marches on. This possibility is made possible in part due to an online petition that is trying to change the grey-market import laws regarding cars and trucks, which currently state that no foreign automobile not approved for U.S. consumption can not be legally imported into the country unless it's twenty-five years-old or older. If it's even six months newer than the cut off date, then you can forget about bringing it here. However, our northern neighbors in the mass of land known as Canada have it much better than we do here regarding grey market cars and trucks. Instead of twenty-five years and older, their laws allow for cars and trucks fifteen years-old and older. While it won't allow you, at the moment, to import a 2006 Ute to Canadian soil, it will allow you to import the VS model from 1996 and, if you're patient, eventually a VX model from 2000 in four more years (if you didn't know, the VX was based on the VT Commodore, which we would more commonly recognize as a four-door GTO). Making the U.S. law match the Canadian law is what the petition is aiming for, so yes, the catch to the Canadian law I explained above would be the catch to the law here if it's changed. In my opinion, it's worlds better than what we have right now. It also would mean the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't be wasting our tax dollars on confiscating Nissan Skylines anymore and instead would be, you know, more apt to fighting terrorism within our borders as it was intended to do. Shoot, maybe the money the government could potentially make from allowing individuals to import some cool cars could help contribute to reducing the deficit (okay, a long shot, but who knows?). If you're interested in getting some sort of Holden Ute or any other bad ass car that we didn't get to buy fifteen years ago over here, well, the petition has 20,846 signatures to go before December. Even then there's a chance nothing can come of it. Hopefully, though, everyone who posts here will do their part and sign it and, just for good measure, tell two friends to put their name on it as well. You can sign the petition here.

I want my tax return NOW. Not next year, but NOW. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://lexington.craigslist.org/cto/2695425397.html http://lexington.craigslist.org/cto/2699694268.html

That's not the sole point I'm trying to make. I'm just wondering why GM chose to make Lee's Famous Recipe when they could've just as easily made KFC -- the real thing -- with not much more effort or cost. Want to know something, though? I don't know why all of those styling changes bother me, to be honest. Maybe it's because I feel that GM was capable of greater, effortless, and production feasible design prowess here and that makes me worry what that might mean for some future car that I'll be far more inclined to care about and actually purchase. I don't think you'd need a trained eye to pick up on the differences. I know I found a lot of them on my first glance. Then again, I'm not about to go out and find people to hold those two pictures up to.

That's mostly true of the pre-1978 cars. These phantom conversions below, however, all worked out great and with little to no fabrication involved. This SEMA Typhoon concept is basically a phantom build (this is also the first decent picture I've found of it online): There's also the Bravada pickup. I don't know why you would build one, but it has been done: Historically, the only reason why Pontiac decided to build the GTO on the Ventura bodyshell for '74 (and '75 if it had sold decently) was that Pontiac feared the car would eat into sales of the '73 Grand Am if it were allowed to remain on the A-Body platform. It wasn't that the A-Body had gotten too big for the GTO's britches. As for the N-Body GTO, GM was thinking on that one pretty hard. I think the Calais 442 is proof enough where GM had its head at during that car's conception. Well, after the first automotive Armageddon of the late '70s and very early '80s, the buyers and press alike were happy to get their hands on any factory hot rod that could be built during the '80s. Sales of the MC/SS prove that. Well it's not only that -- they're still cheap as dirt compared to cars from the '70s now. A grand? Ouch ...

Whoa, whoa. This is totally different from stickers and a fart can on a Civic to "make it go fast." That '83 GP more than likely has a tired 305 in it and I'm proposing to swap it out with some sort of Pontiac V8 to up the performance end of things. The visual end of things is parts-bin sourced, sure, but that's the way GM would've done it in the '80s. There's muscle to back up the look. Phantom projects sometimes don't require thousands and thousands of hours and dollars worth of fabrication. Look at the ElCamino that GM built where they just grafted on the front sheetmetal of a Grand Am. That didn't require a lot of work to build. Hell, you can do that yourself in a weekend. As for converting last generation GTOs back into Monaros ... well, I sort of like those conversions. It's a pretty subtle way to get someone to ask questions about what you're driving. Pontiac was guilty of "whoring" the GTO name to an extent too. The '74 model was based on the Nova and GM came dangerously close to building an N-Body GTO Grand Am in the early '90s. Olds was guilty of throwing the 442 badge on a Calais, but again that wasn't until the '90s came about. Same for all of the SS and GS whoring: it didn't happen until the '90s rolled around (especially in the case of the GS badge which didn't appear until after the Regal went front-wheel drive; in the late '70s and '80s Buick had the T-Type badge for their performance cars, aside from Grand National and GN/X, and those cars were fairly formidable). In the '80s, cars that had those badges were fairly deserving of them considering the era they were built in. The Monte Carlo SS received nothing but praise. The GN/X was a monster. (Sadly, it was the GP 2+2 that no one really respected.) Anyway, I don't think my idea is going to manage to get off the ground because, as it turns out, no one makes reproduction 2+2 nose cones.

Hmmmm ... The TH350 that was in the Cutlass did great for an old 3-speed, I thought. Plus, it's not like anyone's lining up to buy it from me when I try to sell it through Craigslist. The TH350 I have left was pretty much a freshly rebuilt transmission when I pulled it from the Regal. It's sort of a waste to let it sit. If I go through with this project in the near future, though, some sort of transmission will be on the upgrade list ... Ricey? I disagree. The original GTOs were basically just a powerful engine, a different front fascia, and a spoiler bolted up to a LeMans. Okay, I forgot about the hoods being different as well ... I think I'm trying to hold true to the spirit of the GTOs of the '60s and '70s. I also think what I have cooked up would be close to what GM would've actually built in the mid '80s ... if they had really cared about Pontiac anyhow.

2010 Dodge Challenger (New)

Here's something I whipped up illustrating the differences. I couldn't help to pepper in a little opinion in the commentary, so simply ignore where I ramble a bit if you have to. Ignore how crude it is. My graphic design skills have gotten very rusty since I quit taking classes. And, once again, the only things that I see that had to be changed on the concept car (which, once again, was touted to be a "thinly veiled" version of the eventual product) to make it production friendly are: The size of the side-view mirrors. The headlamp detailing. Some interior parts and switchgear. Once again, I think the glasshouse was changed so that the hardpoints of this larger version of EPII could more easily be shared with the upcoming Chevrolet Impala.

Coupes? No. The 442 coupes always used the F-85 post coupes and Holiday hardtop coupes as a base. For '66 or '67 the level of content was based around what items you would get with the Supreme package but all Supreme cars built during the timeframe we're talking about in this thread (1964 to 1972) were ineligible for the 442 package. Techincally the convertibles were Supreme bodyshell-based I guess, but they don't count because ... well, you know. The performance option for the notchback '70 to '72 Supremes was the SX. Here's a site for reference: Link The G-Body coupes aren't included here.

Granted, my terminology was incorrect so I probably should have said "smaller displacement" instead of "small block". I honestly think a Pontiac 350 would be enough motor for the job here. Sure, a 400 or 455 would be nice but I really think it would be overkill in a car like the Grand Prix. My '84 Regal had an Olds Rocket 350 in it when I first had it and that was plenty of motor to make that car fast and burnout-friendly. Granted the Rocket and Pontiac 350s are different motors, but I don't see the end result being all that different. Well, this is meant to be done on a shoestring budget, so modifying the rear-most part of the roofline is out of the picture. Additionally, regarding the 442, it never used the Supreme bodyshell with its formal roofline. Sure, there are plenty of guys who used Supremes to form the basis of a 442 clone, but it's incorrect (the end result would actually be an SX). Actually the Cutlass Holiday coupes, which served as the foundation of the 442, probably had the roundest glasshouse and roofline of any of the A-Body cars. Well, I would be saving more than a buck or two by using the TH350 I already have, at least initially.

The price of those late second-generation T/As depress the living hell out of me.

From posts I've read here in the past, I think I would be safe to assume that a lot of guys here like phantom builds, myself included. It's probably one of the better by-products the scales of automotive economy of the '70s and '80s gave us -- take one unassuming '80s ElCamino and throw some Pontiac Grand Am sheetmetal over it and -- presto! -- your GrandCamino ST awaits you. Well, I stumbled upon an ad on Craigslist today where a guy out in Lawrenceburg is selling an '83 Regal and an '83 Grand Prix for $900 each. He says they're easy resto projects. Despite how much I doubt this, I wouldn't mind having the Grand Prix as the basis for a phantom project of my own: build an '80s GTO. It's a fairly simple recipe that I'm very surprised no one has attempted yet: take one '80s Grand Prix and add the nose cone from the 2+2 model and the rear spoiler from the Monte SS. Paint it in a low profile color like gloss black, add some custom, tastefully designed graphics and a few GTO badges, and throw some sort of Pontiac small block V8 under the hood. Feeling like you might need to additional spice? Hook that SBP to a manual transmision. To spruce up the interior just bolt some nice, period correct leather seats to the floor and slap a Pontiac Formula steering wheel on the column. It's a car that I'm really surprised GM itself didn't try to build in some form back in those days, considering the popularity of the MC/SS and the G-Body 442. I know I currently have other priorities right now, but it's a project that I can't quite shake out of my mind. I have a good TH350 that's designed to mate up to a SBP out in the storage building and ... mmmm ... need to think about other things ...

That's all well and good, hyper. Just for the record, though, my posts weren't written to try and convince you to join my side in this, they were constructed to simply: Explain to you that, from logical observation, I see no reason why the exterior design of the original XTS concept couldn't have been carried over intact as very few details were unfriendly for production. Explain why I condemned the design of the car. Explain to you that by simply studying the original concept and the production car, I did not need any further photos to know that the production XTS is far removed from the original concept and the design ultimately suffers from it. Remind you that I did not make any other definite comments regarding the car. Perhaps I didn't communicate that clearly in my past two posts. I will also add in this bit of food for thought: Robert Cumberford bases his design analysis articles for Automobile on what he sees in photographs. He's been in the field of automotive design for quite some time too, sooooo ... I realize GM Photography sometimes is terrible, but that is only so much truth and so much excuse in the current circumstances. Anyway, that's my stance on the exterior design of this car. Deride it all you want, but I'm standing firm with my opinion: it's an utter disappointment externally versus the production-ready concept car from last year. Again, I'm not trying to convince you to think any differently about how you see this car. I'm also terminating any future argument about it with you from this post forward, but discussion is certainly welcome.

I can understand having an informed opinion about the car, sure. As I've said, though, the one photo we've got is enough to form an opinion on this car from a design standpoint and regarding how the changes made from the concept car affect the design overall. Once again, I've only condemned the car from a design standpoint. Well, no ... not really. While you can't form a rounded opinion about my behavior and personality from one photograph, you can certainly form an opinion about my appearance (e.g. "He's got a nice smile" or "He looks like he might be a bit of a slob"). No one here, myself included, is making any firm assumptions about the car aside from how it has been designed. Again, notice no one has said in this thread that the car "is going to drive like shit" or "will be weak and underpowered." We don't have any hard data to go on here, hence why no one has said anything regarding those two aspects of the car, myself included. Really? Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you here unless you can explain why so much had to be changed from the production-ready concept car. I've given my explanation here and -- I'm sorry -- that's the only thing that makes logical sense. It's certainly not because that the original concept car would be expensive to produce on the outside. I don't know if the general public will get behind this one if it's going to max out beyond $50k price wise. Then again, it's really too early to assume anything about this car sales wise. That doesn't mean I won't speculate, though. However, I will guarantee this: if this car does not deliver on all expectations regarding fuel economy, an involving driving experience, interior fit and finish, the level of standard content, and overall quality then the press will crucify this car, Cadillac, and GM as a result. They had better hope that they've built a good enough stop-gap until they decide to produce the Ciel for general consumption (but I'm not holding my breath regarding the Ciel), otherwise this car will haunt them until they pull the plug on it. Regarding China, I really think this car will consistently lose out to the Park Avenue. Just saying and speculating.

I really approve of it. Interesting thing I noticed in the photos, though: the upper door panels remind me quite a bit of the Opel/Saturn Astra and some of the radio switchgear appears to be Black-tie derived.

Another change I noticed that only serves to further cheapen the car's appearance is the loss of the contrasting grille work that the concept XTS had. I don't understand this one, considering the CTS and Escalade Platinum both have it. I'm not inclined to agree here. The concept car was, reportedly, based around the EPII architecture itself, meaning that cowl height, hard points, and things of that nature regarding the design were supposed to be production friendly. The only details that I see that would have to be changed for production from the original concept would be the internal lighting elements of the headlamps (not their shape) and the size of the sideview mirrors. (Additionally, certain aspects of the interior would undoubtedly have to be changed as well, but that's another story for right now.) No, instead I think all of those unnecessary changes were made so that the hard points of the car could more easily translate to and be shared with the upcoming EPII Impala, forsaking what little exclusivity the concept had to offer. Mark my words on this; it's little more than a '77 Seville for the twenty-first century. If something didn't make production, there is a reason and that reason is bureaucracy. Like I said, that one photo tells quite a lot. Put it up next to the concept car and the bigger picture is right there for you to see, plain as daylight. Again, you don't need a full press-kit to analyze this thing from a design standpoint. It's a mess and it's been needlessly tampered with from the original concept car. As for what powertains this car will have and how it will drive, no one has made any criticisms regarding those two areas in this thread. Regarding it competing with the 7-Series and S-Class, well, we knew when Fritz the Ditz introduced the original concept car last year this would be anything but a competitor to those cars. That's why there was so many people here up in arms about it, people were worried that GM would position this car above the CTS and call it quits, especially considering the ongoing uncertainty of a future large, rear-drive Cadillac and also when it was revealed it was not only going to replace the DTS but the STS as well. I think we all realize that this car is competing with the Lincoln MKS, Acura RL, and Lexus ES. That's also troublesome because those are cars that are in the Buick LaCrosse's territory and that car has done a wonderful job of going after those buyers. Honestly, the LaCrosse is a much nicer car than the XTS. I just hope that the XTS doesn't somehow sabotage the footing the LaCrosse has managed to make here. I'm not so sure GM's going to see a big return on this one in America, if they're building it solely to get old Ma and Pa Kettle to trade in their Devilles and DTS's. As for China, that's really anyone's guess. Yes, it's not a flagship. But that doesn't mean the original concept should have been thrown away like it has. The XTS is a Cadillac and some people, regardless if they intend to buy one or not, hold the marquee to standards higher than what this production XTS has been designed and (perhaps) built to.

Revealed! 2013 Chevrolet Trailblazer Concept By "black-knight" C&G Editor/Reporter 9th November, 2011 Dinosaurs. Sabre-Toothed Tigers. Megalodons. Cheap V8-powered, mid-sized muscle coupes. Large, rear-drive Cadillacs. Truck-based mid-sized SUVs. These are all things that have wound up extinct or virtually endangered to the point of complete extinction. But once in a rare while, sometimes a species can save itself and rise triumphantly from the point of sinking completely into the primordial ooze (organic, automotive, or otherwise). Out of the groups mentioned above, one may just do that. Of course, I'm talking about truck-based mid-sized SUVs and one small, Bowtie-based faction of the species may be making a small comeback. As we reported last month, the new Trailblazer reconnects with its old S10 Blazer roots and forsakes a unique platform this time, instead choosing to share it with the new Colorado. Nostalgic indeed. Powertrains are expected to be the same as what will be offered in the Colorado. Previously, GM has stated there are no current plans to bring the new Trailblazer Stateside, which means it will only see duty in Asia and South America. However, there are rumblings it may eventually find its way here, if not in Chevrolet guise then as a GMC. However it gets here doesn't matter. What's important is that shows up to throw a big middle finger in the face of CAFE (and smug Prius driving women). More information on the new Trailblazer will be released throughout the day, so stay tuned. Source: Car Adivce More Photos: Album: 2013 Chevrolet Trailblazer Concept 4 images 0 comments View full article

Well, it's time to drop my two cents into the cup here, so be forewarned: some of you will not like what I have to say. In the past I know I wasn't the biggest fan of the XTS concept, but after seeing the production version ... well, I think I can honestly say I appreciate it far more now and would rather have it back. I loathe what they've decided to build for production here. The production car does seem to follow the essence set by the XTS concept car, but it's also a complete deviation from it at the same time, to the point where it's almost a different car entirely. It's rather bizarre seeing how the concept car looked virtually production ready, aside from the side view mirrors. In hindsight and contrast, compared to the production car, the concept looked like you could manage to pass it off as a $55,000 car. The production car, however, looks like it might would belong in the $30,000 to $40,000 segment (and that is being generous to a degree). It's not completely irrational hate, either. Sure, I do have one photo to go by, but that one photo tells me quite a lot. The original concept car had a sharper, knife-edged presence, a trait typical of Cadillac these days. The production car, on the other hand, is considerably softer than the vehicle that set its foundation. It's almost quite drastic, really; there's far more marshmallow creme in the mix now than concrete. The glasshouse has been stretched in ways it didn't have to be stretched. Due to that change, the sideview mirrors no longer mount in front of the front windows, and a nasty piece of square plastic is in that area instead. The concept car also did not have a sixth window, another side effect from needlessly changing the greenhouse, which only serves to clutter up the design in the case of the XTS production car. The rear side glass should have been left integral. The crease that ran below the lower window line has been needlessly raised upward, which will undoubtedly make the production car look a touch slouchy in profile when compared to the original concept car. The door handles are, as a result, moved upward as well and lose their nice, teardrop scallops in favor of something more parts-bin friendly. There was also a nice isosceles crease near the bottom of the doors on the concept car. The production XTS throws that nice touch completely in the trash and chooses to substitute it with what seems to be a cheap piece of flat door molding instead. The headlights seem more fitting on a pre-2010 Ford Fusion and the black trim that runs their perimeter gives the impression of nine mile-wide panel gaps. The changes to the foglights and their surrounds are, no doubt, tacky, tasteless, and pointless. The grille, which looked sturdy on the concept, now looks brittle and cheap on the production car, with it having a nasty gap above it's upper banner. If you think this is all exaggeration, think again. Here's the concept and production car side by side. Look for yourself. From a design perspective, this looks to me like the inbred bastard offspring of a Saturn Aura and a Chevrolet Impala. It's absolutely terrible. It is not a Cadillac nor is it what they should aspire to build. I hope for GM and Cadillac's sake they don't try to abandon the Ciel concept like they did the Sixteen.

The Saab Saga Continues: GM Threatens to Shelve 9-4x By "black-knight" C&G Editor/Reporter 8th November, 2011 If you've been following the story of Saab since GM cut its ties with the Swedish automaker then you'd know that things are not all well and good in Scandinavia. However, things may only continue to get worse. Recently, Saab CEO Victor Muller, who has risked everything to continue the Saab legacy (going so far as to sell Spyker, the sports car firm that brought him good fortune), announced that Chinese automakers were interested in supporting Saab with a fifty-fifty partnership. Then, not too long after that, those same Chinese automakers, Youngman and Pang Da decided an outright takeover would be more appropriate than propping Saab up with a partnership. Saab first backed down and then later came to an understanding with Youngman and Pang Da. This drama is playing out alongside Saab's bankruptcy woes and the fact that the Trollhättan plant hasn't produced one brand new 9-5 since April. The plot has thickened further in the last few days, though. GM has grown worried about two things: a complete conflict of interest between Saab's future Chinese owners and the Chinese automaker SAIC, with whom GM shares a Chinese bedroom with and, at the forefront of it all, what would be pirated technology. Unwilling to allow the potential sharing of proprietary technology with the two unaffiliated Chinese firms, GM has said it will sever all ties with Saab in the form of cutting off supplies of powertrains, parts, and vehicles to Saab. Sitting directly in the crosshairs of that statement is the 9-4x which shares its platform and most of its components with the Cadillac SRX. GM's Jim Cain released a statement on Monday about the situation, which stated: "Although General Motors is open to the continued supply of powertrains and other components to Saab under appropriate terms and conditions, GM will not agree to the continuation of the existing technology licenses or the continued supply of 9-4X vehicles to Saab following the proposed change in ownership as it would not be in the best interests of GM shareholders." Muller stated that the deal would "have to go back to the drawing board" as a result of GM's hardened position on the issue. Sources: Chicago Tribune and Automotive News

Harpy borfthday, sir.

GM only 5,003 Volts or accidentally 5,003 Volts? Either way, sounds painful.

An AMC Eagle with botox and a boob job in a neglige? I approve.

The first-generation Chevrolet Lumina. Well, okay, I'm not being totally honest here. To clarify, what I actually like about it is its interior. It's a rather simple, efficient design that's also very well flowing. It's very understated and clever. Lots of potential here.