By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwHheFfEcJo
I have no Granada memories in my family other than a beater coupe a relative had in the 90s. But I do remember looking at a loaded black on red (I think) 1976 model with my dad, back around 1993 or so - another potential hobby car. This one was black with sporty wheels, moonroof, V8, loaded to the gills, I think it was an ESS. It didn't need much, from an estate I think, and I think it could have been had for $400-500. I wonder what became of it, probably sold off to a local yokel and ran into the ground.
I assume there were no any idiotic flames on it. :shades:
She let me drive it once. Not too bad, with the 302. I remember it having a rust spot in the rear quarter, and like an idiot I poked at it, and my finger went right through it! Needless to say, I did this right in front of her father, and he was none too amused.
Oh, and back around 1999, when I was still delivering pizzas, but before I bought my Intrepid, one of the managers had a 1979 Granada 4-door with the 250-6cyl that he wanted to sell, for only a couple hundred bucks. He let me drive it around the parking lot. The main thing I remember about it was that it felt like a much bigger car than it really was, when it came to handling. As I recall, this was one of the biggest complaints that many testers had about the Granada. They tried to engineer a big-car feel into a compact, but ended up with something that was so mushy and numb and unresponsive, that it actually ended up handling WORSE than many genuine big cars!
As I recall, that was often an issue back then, when the domestics tried to pass their smaller cars off to traditional big car buyers. Now that I think about it, the '79 Volare coupe I once drove, which had a 360-4bbl, didn't seem to handle as well as my '68 Dart. It just seemed mushier, less responsive, etc. Now my '89 Gran Fury actually handled like a modern car (well, modern by late '90's standards), but it was an ex-police car, and probably not typical of the Mopar F/M body.
I wonder if those Granada ESS models had any suspension upgrades that improved their handling, or if it was just an appearance package? I think in the right color, with the sporty wheels, and with at least the 302 (you could even get a 351 in them from around 1975-77), a Granada might be a fairly decent car.
Impressively modern factory, very flexible assembly. Henry Ford would be proud. :shades:
Never mind that they're now owned by Fiat.
I remember when I was in high school (early 90s), a teacher had a Mercury Monarch coupe. She sarcastically called it her "little butterfly" as she claimed it averaged like 14mpg - so must have been a V8. She must have been saving up though, as she later bought a new STS.
I remember the relative who had the beater Granada had one with the weird mechanical-digital clock. She was bad on cars, and one of those people who'd rather buy a beater every 6 months than maintain a car. I remember some of her oddballs from 20 years ago - 65 Coupe DeVille, 74 Continental, 70 Ford Custom stripper, Maverick 2 door, big boat 76 Olds 2 door, ~81 LeMans wagon, 81 Cordoba, and sadly, a very nice loaded 76 Malibu sedan that had rally wheels and I think a brocade-like interior, that she also ran into the ground.
Nothing to write home about...slow, burned oil, high teens mpg.
The worst part was owning a slow Mustang with extremely high insurance. Turned me off to cars entirely - I rode motorcycles for several years after that.
From a styling perspective, a Granada sedan is pretty clean for the time, with only a little bric-a-brac. Must have been that MB imitating theme. I don't know how they could be optioned, but a mint loaded one could be a fun enough retro car. That black one I remember would have been something tuned up and given a good detail.
I guess I see us (lawyers) as a necessary component of society, but sometimes we run amuck...I have always told folks that class action lawsuits will not put any money in their pocket, but will definitely put $$$ in the lawyers pocket...
When you sit down with a client for a will, even a simple will is rarely "simple"...they want this to go to their son, and that to go to the daughter, but them you have contingencies (what if the son dies before the father does) or they want to leave someone OUT of the will...then they change their mind...then they leave everything to the wife, but they want a trust so she can't squander all the money in a year...meanwhile, the client is "thinking", and using up office time...THEN the will has to be drafted...you seem to think that a will takes 20 minutes of client time and 10 minutes of attorney time, and it simply is not true...a "simple" will will often take over a few hours to get done, but in the mind of the client, it is "only a simple will"...$200 is cheap if it takes over a few hours...
Lawyer joke: why is divorce so expensive???...because it is worth it...:):):)
My friend got divorced...I recommended that he NOT fight over every little knife, fork, spoon and lamp, because that is where time is taken up at the attorney (or BOTH atty's) hourly rate...I told him if it cost under $200 to replace an item, give in and let the wife have it, because you will spend $300 for every hour you fight over the item...don't spend $300 to fught for a $200 item, it is cheaper to capitulate and buy a new item later...he didn't listen, and his divorce was expensive...why should the lawyers be blamed???...if the couple could work out their differences, the divorce would be cheap, but if they insist on fighting for hours over every plate and coffee cup, why should the lawyers donate their time???
Lastly...I have met senior citizens (let's call them the old-school folks who would NEVER think of suing anybody, and they are HIGHLY critical of those who file suits against others) and they get in a car wreck...their med bills are $3,000, and the insurance offers them $1,200.00...ever seen a 70 year old go ballistic over how he is being screwed by the auto insurance company, where can I file suit against those b**tards...you will watch 70 years of criticism evaporate in 3 seconds because he is being treated unfairly...now, if the insurance made fair offers, we might not be needed, but the ins co has one job, to screw you out of money...most often, we DO earn our keep...
Abd you are right...if a case does not have sufficient worth, we will nto file suit for you, unless you pay the expenses (file fee, deposition fees, reporter fees up front)...I will NOT spend $4000 of my money for a case worth $8000, yet all clients have NO IDEA that a deposition now cost easily $500 and an expert witness (like your doctor) may cost upwards of a few thousand, but all you see is your rights violated, but you won't front the expenses because, "that's what the lawyer is for"...and if we lose the case, will YOU pay us the $4000 upfront costs we advanced???...yeah, right...
That is why the case must have value if we are to sue over it, we must have a good chance of success...if a medmal case isn;t worth over $50K, you may have a case, but not one worth suing over, due to the upfront costs...
Does it come down to money???...why not???...the same client who calls us greedy is the same one who won't front their own expenses by a dollar...they expect us to pay all expenses regardless of the value of the case...sorry, Santa Claus simply does not live here...
Nothing to write home about...slow, burned oil, high teens mpg.
Yeah, same engine family, that dates back to the tiny 144 CID Falcon inline-6 of 1960. There was a 170 CID enlargement. I think the 200 CID (3.3) came out for 1965, and then a 250 CID (4.1) came out a few years later.
Ford also had a 240 inline-6 that debuted in their big cars for 1965, and was used until around 1972 or so. There was a 300 CID enlargement of it (4.9L) that was used in trucks, and became legendary for durability.
In the dog-day years of the 70's, I think the 3.3 was usually good for about 85-90 hp. Not much more than the little 2.3 Pinto OHC 4-cyl that was the base engine in cars like the Mustang and Fairmont, although I'm sure the six had more torque. More weight too, but maybe the torque was enough to make it a little less slow? The 4.1/250 was usually good for around 95-98 hp, but I think there was one year in there it actually got choked to 72! That might've been a California version or something. But overall, it was enough of a dog that it wasn't enough to power Ford's full-sized cars. And after a few years, even the midsized Torino got too heavy for it, so it had to go with standard V-8 power.
Years back when I was in college there were not all those many law schools, so students had to be bright to get in. Like medicine, the graduates had plenty of work because of supply and demand. There wasn't time for all this frivolous nonsense that clogs the courts these days. Today, besides way too many laws everywhere, it seems like every Dick and Jane college has a law school. It has become a profit center like the MBA programs and football teams. Maybe doctors tend to be Republicans while lawyers tend to be Democrats because the doctors understand the laws of "supply and demand".
I certainly agree that there is nothing wrong with making a buck whatever your profession, but as the legal profession has gotten watered down I'm hoping more of these bright students go into engineering or medicine. Lawyers have lost respect because people get impressions from TV ads suing every known to man pharmacuetical or featuring car crashes on how to get rich off of it. Watch local TV in your neighboring state of Florida and you'll want to puke, its an embarrassment to the professional lawyers out there. They've even got husband wife Attorney and Chiropractor lawsuit business advertisements.
I still don't know which is a better investment - a good divorce lawyer or a hitman :shades:
We certainly have become too lawsuit happy...I had someone call me once for medmal...a doctor had performed an 85% mastectomy, leaving behind some tissue that the client thought was ugly...I told her that other women would love to have that tissue left so that reconstructive surgery could start with what she had...I don't know what ever happened to her, but what I thought was a great thing (not removing all tissue in a radical mastectomy) she thought should be a case for medmal... :confuse: :confuse:
Doesn't the Democratic party receive their largest donations from the legal eagles????
Battles over employment issues, commissions due, and defective high-end purchases have all turned out well using the legal eagles at fixed percentages.. One last thing I did without a lawyer was had GM buyback a 1998 automobile with 28k miles, was refunded the full purchase price less $800 for mileage..It had brake and steering issues, and I turned around with the check and bought a 1999 model same brand, and later got the end of production model 2002 which did 120 k miles with ease..
Off the legal eagle bit and let's get to Chrysler which in my book is now a "Foreign Owned Corporation" and qualifies as a transplant, no longer a "Big 3" entity.. A near-broke Italian Fiat owns 60% and the other 40% is UAW and Canadian owned.. UAW was handed a gift by the WH lawyers and Canada fits the left-hand template very well..
Having had 51 Big 3 cars +2 Porsches, my choice for an American company narrows down to Ford.. They have not been corrupted as yet..Waiting for the next economic downturn before the 2013 models arrive..
For Boomers, It's Work 'Til You Drop! title
Looks like "retirement" is something we'll read about in history books.
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It's about 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To who?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...
Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
Eventually the one trick pony of corporate director level management being able to outsource and offshore (funny how that's a verb now) will run its course, then what will they do?
On my list GM & GE just fell in the "septic tank."
What an stinky mess!!!!
Can't wait til this stuff is allowed here!
I guess that means the 1st quarter was the first bailout, and soon the 3rd quarter will demand a 3rd bailout, and when the game is over the US will no long exist as we default on our debts from too many bailouts.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ETeB2JnpXiU
South Korean Journalists Focus Their Cameras on Camden
"Industry is gone, jobs are gone. People have to find a way to make a living, so crime escalates."
:sick:
There's an article on the net about the much praised Tyota Georgetown plant being given all kinds of breaks by governments and then using a Japanese company, Japanese steel, to build the plant. Then there are other things where they used non-US companies to complete the operation so they can say how wonderful it is that they build those Tyotas here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Were other, US-based, suppliers higher bidders over bringing Japanese steel for the building and the machinery from Japan?
Do you have some insider information?
Do countries like Japan and Korea allow open access to US businesses to setup and do as they please? or do they require 1/2 partnerships with local companies? Or do they exclude them with all kinds of taxes? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So no, I'm not a big fan of state monopoly capitalism. But I don't want to pay an extra $1,000 for my Prius either. And I don't want my TM price to lag. Don't wany my NUE to lag either (think I'm conflicted much?).
Wow... :sick:
Link or it ain't true...
Source matters a lot. If it's some group of former UAW employees or a Michigan local paper then we all know what that means.
Now you know that statement is not true. There are things I have read an seen and I recall them without being able to cite a link. Sometimes llinks are not findable, even though they did exist in the past.
But I do understand what you are wanting. And, it's my lucky day, I found the link.
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-111009.shtml
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"Now how we can combine 92 percent (for gasoline Camrys) and 59 percent (for Hybrid Camrys) and come up with 89 percent (according to the American Automobile Labeling Act) is beyond me"
Well, that statement makes me REALLY laugh. Let me do a little math:
If 90% of Camrys made are gasoline (someone with time to waste can look this up, but I bet my estimate is pretty close), then 90% of cars with 92% dom. parts + 10% hybrids with 59% dom. parts = 89%.
I could go on and on, but why bother.
The unions have repeated shown that they're not very bright.
I believe what you're trying to say is that the statistic would have been more meaningful had the weighted average been used.
> To stay on my point rather than ridicule,
Do you have a link that one of these is FALSE?
Remember if it ain't linked, it ain't true, accord to a long known philosopher.
1. The Toyota plant built in Georgetown, Kentucky in 1987 was built with Japanese steel by a Japanese steel company.
2. Toyota was given 1,500 acres of free land.
3. A "special trade zone" was established so Toyota could import parts duty-free from Japan.
4. Financing was handled by Mitsui Bank of Japan.
5. Total federal, state, and local tax incentives (tax giveaways) reached $100 million, courtesy of your tax dollars and mine.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,