There was an excellent article on styling 1970s cars in Collectible Automobile a few issues back. Apparently, it was a terrible time to be an automotive stylist with all the government mandates. I'd say GM handled the 5-mph bumper fiasco the best out of the Big Three. Those 5-mph bumper regs ruined a lot of previously attractive cars. Check out British sportscars with the 5-mph bumpers like the MG and Jaguar XKE. Yuck!
My brother had one of these babies and was cut off out on L.I. and sliced a telephone pole in half as a result. Walked away unscathed but the beauty had to be junked. :sick:
That's a cool picture...you don't see the 2-door sedans that often anymore. I know where there's a '58 Chevy partly buried in the mud on a floodplain...probably been there since before my time. To this day, the bumpers on the car still look good, while the rest just crumbles into oblivion!
I've always heard conflicting stories though, on how well-built the '58 Chevies were. On one hand, they had that wasp-waisted X-frame, which you'd think would allow for more twisting, which would make for more rattles. And I'd also think it would fare pretty poorly in a t-bone wreck. But on the other hand, to account for the lack of side protection and the twisting, the body of the car was beefed up. So while the car was still body-on-frame, some Unibody techniques were applied to the body, so the overall result was a bit of a hybrid of the two.
I always thought the '58 Chevy was a good looking car. I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer it to the '57.
Well, my Bro. got the '58 cheap....the '57 was too dear back then as well. The front protection was better than today's cars except no Air bags and no crumple zones...the radiator was toast in that wreck along with fenders against tires....but the bumper was only slightly bent while the pole broke into 3!
My Mom had the '56, bought new while my Bro. got the '58 17 years later.
Hopefully they do not use the same hybrid drive train that is in the Malibu. That is a joke. It only gets a combined 29 MPG rating while the larger Ford Fusion hybrid is rated 39 MPG combined and owners are reporting 43 MPG combined.
Anyway, while I really agree with the secind part of your argument, I'm not sure that's the case with the first part. Bling overkill never infiltrate European cars because continental europeans find them tacky and corny. It's not a matter of reputation alone, its a matter of taste. I've heard a lot of comments from Europeans regarding the new Cadillacs (particularly the CTS), and the said the designs are actually nice and distinctive, but the chrome bathing kills all the appeal.
Maybe they're gonna use the same 2 foot tall H-Y-B-R-I-D stickers on the sides and trunk that the hybrid SUV's use. With the pathetic sales of the SUV's, there should be a bunch of those kicking around. :P
Not a fan of Motorweek (dry, blah, lifeless automotive reviews IMO), but they had a review of the new Fusion hybrid this week. Wow, 0-60 in a very respectable 7.9 seconds and returns 41/39? along with bluetooth, Navi, leather, moonroof, and a really cool backlit LED dash. I think that car just jumped to the top of my list if I were buying a midsize family sedan/commuter. Only thing I would change would be the dull looking alloys...
That is also unlikely. Last I read Toyota has a strangle hold on suppliers of some of the key parts. They dribble them out to Ford. I don't see Buick making any real inroads in the hybrid market. Unless they just build a handful like Nissan does. Hardly enough to save Buick or GM.
Not a fan of Motorweek (dry, blah, lifeless automotive reviews IMO), but they had a review of the new Fusion hybrid this week.
Well it's public television, whaddya expect?! :P That 0-60 in 7.9 seconds catches my attention, though, and is a nice complement to the 41/39. I definitely like the Fusion, and if I was in the market for a new car, it would probably be one of my top considerations. I'd probably just go with the 4-cyl though, as I don't log enough miles to warrant a hybrid, IMO.
GM had to choose between 3 plants to mfr new compact: WISC, TENN, MICH.
GM decided on existing GM plant in Michigan rather than use TENN plant that has state of art painting process/facility costing hundreds of millions. MICH plant will have to be updated with this new painting process. Union and Mich Dems being paid back for their Obama support. Tenn has 2 Republican Senators. UAW agreed to starting pay of $14/hr vs $28/hr standard for building this new compact car.
New car will be out as 2011 model and will be lucky to break even.
---
Do we taxpayers have any chance at all of GM paying us back.
LaCrosse hybrid? We're still trying to figure out when the Lexus RX 450h is going to hit the dealers, and that hit the auto shows last November. :P
Your link isn't working for me but Motor Authority quotes Wards quoting GM that one is in the works. There's one in China I guess.
The Fusion hybrid does look nice. It's a bit pricey and you lose the trunk pass-through because of the battery pack behind the rear seat. Nice mpg though, and the reviewers like driving it better than the other hybrids.
GM News is thin this week. There is this for those heading out on your summer vacation:
Actually, yes, because break-even is an improvement from the severe losses they've always taken on compacts just to meet CAFE standards (and when you get down to it, it might have been cheaper to just take the CAFE hit).
If they can make it to break even, maybe they can actually get to the point of making money on small cars. This is an important thing to accomplish.
This is a little off topic but when did gm eliminate the majority of their manual transmissions, with the exception for the compact cars/light trucks/performance cars. Just curious thats all.
When they needed to meet CAFE standards and they realized manuals don't sell all that well outside a few niches. Auto-trannys can be programmed for max fuel economy: you'll notice these days they tend to get higher MPG ratings than manuals, right?
I've read about it somewhere (MT or CD). Cadillac is going to offer new models and revise some older models: 1. a Lexus ES competitor by the name XTS 2. The next CTS is gonna be smaller to better compete with class leaders 3. Escalade is also going to be smaller 4. One flagship model to replace both STS and DTS.
This is a little off topic but when did gm eliminate the majority of their manual transmissions, with the exception for the compact cars/light trucks/performance cars. Just curious thats all.
***** The last manual transmission available in a larger or midsize car was in 1987 IIRC, as a special order option on the Buick Regal/Century. Usually this was an option on a Grand National, but it could be ordered for a standard car as well.)remember seeing the order sheet in 1986 when I was contemplating a "sleeper" Regal with the Grand National engine and manual. No emblems, interior, or hood changes though. IIRC, only a couple of hundred of these were ordered and still command a decent price if you can find one.
Then it was automatics and front wheel drive since then. This also coincides with their loss in market share. People don't *like* front wheel drive as a rule. They get it because it's "practical" and "the norm", much like how minivans are. So the loss of a manual as an option plus RWD placed GM right in the middle of the "rental/commuter box" category for many people. And the Japanese makers were the best at this segment at the time.
One useless statistic that sticks in my mind is that something like 99.6% of all 1956 DeSotos were equipped with an automatic transmission. So I'd presume that the same would hold true for equivalent-price GM cars, like Buick and Olds.
Another useless statistic...for the 1976 LeMans, I found this quote... "Only 8.5 percent of all LeMans intermediates got the Six and 99.8 percent were automatics."
Now, I don't quite know how to read that...whether 99.8% of ALL LeManses were automatics (I suspect this is the case) or 99.8% of all 6-cyl LeManses were automatics. The base transmission back then was a 3-on-the-tree. However, you could get a 400 V-8 with a 5-speed manual...that must have been fun, considering the era. I believe there was also a package where you could get the Olds 260 V-8 with a 4-speed? In 1977, 99.4% off all LeManses were automatic.
I didn't realize you could still get a Regal with a stick by 1987. In looking through the EPA's data, the last most recent year they show a stick shift in a GM intermediate is 1981, and there it's only offered on the Malibu with the 229, or the Century/Cutlass/LeMans with the 231. The Monte Carlo, Regal, and Grand Prix aren't shown as offering it. However, is it possible that if they build few enough of a certain combination, the EPA just doesn't test it?
The EPA's online data only goes back to 1978 (although I've heard that fuel economy in the window sticker actually first started showing up for 1975). It doesn't show any GM full-size cars in 1978 offering a manual shift. I think they actually made the automatic standard in the big cars sometime between 1971-76, but I'm not positive.
In a somewhat bold move, when the FWD GM-10 coupes came out for 1988, the Cutlass Supreme and Grand Prix were offered with a 5-speed manual, mated to a 2.8 V-6. I doubt if very many sold, though. When that hot 3.4 V-6 came out, you could also get it with a 5-speed, at least up through 1993 I think.
I would disagree with the statement that "people don't like front wheel drive as a rule." I began driving a front wheel family car in 1970, and have never looked back. Here in the snow belt, I much prefer a front wheel drive vehicle, or AWD, than rear wheel drive. Of course, those with racing, and outright handling pretensions, will always disagree with the advantages/disadvantages, and/or safety of front wheel drive. So be it, I've driven both in the wet, snow, and ice, and would prefer the front wheel drive powertrain any day for a family vehicle. And, yes, I am a skilled driver, having raced Formula Fords, and Class C Production cars in the past, so I know how to drive a RWD vehicle.
I didn't realize you could still get a Regal with a stick by 1987. In looking through the EPA's data, the last most recent year they show a stick shift in a GM intermediate is 1981, and there it's only offered on the Malibu with the 229, or the Century/Cutlass/LeMans with the 231. The Monte Carlo, Regal, and Grand Prix aren't shown as offering it. However, is it possible that if they build few enough of a certain combination, the EPA just doesn't test it?
Andre,
This is how I remember it as well - the last g-body to have a manual was the malibu and that was with the 229 and was early & rare. IIRC the owners manual for my '81 Calais listed a 4-spd option, but again, that was only for the 231. If pletko is correct and a couple hundred g-body Regals were built with a manual I wonder what trans they used because it definitely wasn't the T5 nor Doug-Nash 4+3 because those things were hella weak and I know it wasn't a T-56 because you would've been talking firewall / floor surgery as well as other system changes and it wasn't even out yet (believe it was intro'd for the '89 or '90 model year Corvette). Chevy was already miffed that GNs were eating Corvettes for dinner at the time (and I won't even get into the GNX). Also, like you stated EPA wasn't going to let that fly, plus the certification $$. And I'm sure one of us car nuts would've known about it.
As far as the "sleeper" Grand National all I know was the T-Type.
"The "new" General Motors that emerges from bankruptcy by the end of this week may well usher in the event with a new logo -- one that is green instead of blue."
As far as the "sleeper" Grand National all I know was the T-Type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Regal ** 1987 was the only year that the LC2 Turbo option was available on any Regal, making it possible to even see a Limited with a vinyl landau roof and a power bulge turbo hood. ** That was the deal - you could get a vinyl or normal top 4 door with the turbo engine in it for 1987. Looked dead-stock other than a bulge in the hood. No GNX suspension or interior or other things. With manual.(checkbox buried in the massive list of options) I still wish I'd custom ordered one...
Of course who would have guessed that in 1988 GM would go FWD and drop almost every last manual other than in the Skylark and a few other worthless things passed off as cars...
Well Fritz Henderson said today that GM will focus on four brands, Buick being one, and they'll focus on the environment and fuel economy. So it all fits. (AutoObserver)
(Bvdj84, that wasn't a link for a personal purpose - just treat it as news. Unless Cooterbfd has moved to Kansas )
OK, so then no formal announcement in the works as to what type of hybrid yet.
If moving to Kansas is what it takes to get my Lacrosse........ :surprise: .......anyhow, it looks as if it was an ad by a Topeka dealer for NYC. So I guess they'd ship it for me. Too bad it's not the CXS or I'd consider it. It is the right color, after all
I'd trust Wards to get the story right. GM is probably waiting for a slower news day to make the official announcement and hit the rest of the press.
I haven't read all the news onsite but it looks like only Wards has the scoop. Fritz is saying today that "GM will offer 10 new models in the next 18 months." So it could be a bit of a wait. (Edmunds Daily)
New logo idea looks sickly. GM being tarnished by its bankruptcy maybe should have had "team" brainstorm an entirely new name for the new "entity". Many corps back in 90's renamed themselves with new-age sounding names. One word, not two. The name, General Motors, sounds so, so.....old. And, stodgy. And, of the early part of 20th century, not the 21st.
What does the new CEO guy, Whitacre, think about this? Back when he was running Southwestern Bell and acquiring other telecoms, he renamed his company to SBC Global. But, alas, when he/they acquired and folded in the remnants of the old AT&T, he renamed SBC Global to AT&T for its superior name recognition. But, of course, AT&T never was a disaster and bankruptcy case and it had/has superior name recognition.
Yeah, those of us who had to rent our phones from Ma Bell for decades have no taint in our mouth about AT&T. :shades:
New name? Let's see - General Motors Corp. is an anagram for Acorn Promoter Gels. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but it has a nice Obama connection.
New logo idea looks sickly. GM being tarnished by its bankruptcy maybe should have had "team" brainstorm an entirely new name for the new "entity".
They should make a break with the old name while retaining some continuity. The new company could be something like "GenM" for the new General Motors - there's a connection to the old company but enough of a change to show customers it is really new. Ideas:
GenM - The new General Motors GM* - The New General Motors NGM - New General Motors GMT - General Motors Technologies (not a time zone!) GVC - General Vehicles Corporation USM - US Motors PMS - Public Motor Systems (sorry, got carried away...)
A few (rich) people got special phones and got the local telephone utility to install them. Otherwise it was, if not illegal, practically impossible to hook up your own devices to Ma Bell's system.
All that rent over the years - how do you think they were able to afford Bell Labs?
Wiki has the gory details. The door cracked open to answering machines and non-AT&T phones in '68.
In the early '70s, I not only bought my previously leased Western Electric (built like a battleship) AT&T phone, but installed my first third-party manufactured tape-based answering machine on the line. All AT&T required was an FCC registration number for the answering machine. No hassles, and no problem.
One thing that the deregulation of AT&T created: generally crappy hardware. Compared to the well-designed and ruggedly-built Western Electric OEM AT&T phones, the vast majority of hardware out there today for landlines is junk. AT&T spent a lot of research time on developing their phones with an audio bandpass of 300 Hz to 3kHz for maximum voice intelligibility. Most cheap phones today use a condenser mic which has a much broader frequency response range.
A few (rich) people got special phones and got the local telephone utility to install them. Otherwise it was, if not illegal, practically impossible to hook up your own devices to Ma Bell's system.
Recall that the "rent" option came after phone companies and AT&T unbundled the cost of the phone. Phone companies provided phones to subscribers as part of having telephone service and cost of phone was hidden in monthly bill. When rent option came, one could then buy your own phone OR rent from Bell operating companies that belonged to mother AT&T.
Back to GM. Believe that GM name is about 100 years old and AT&T name is 120. Phonetically, AT&T being a 100 year old name/brand/logo still sounds/looks strong and contemporary. General Motors could simply refer to themselves as "GM" in the future to have a more contemporary/current name. Maybe the White House car/GM czar or Obama will input on this.
In the early '70s, I not only bought my previously leased Western Electric (built like a battleship) AT&T phone
I do recall that those old Western Electric phones were practically indestructible.
Speaking of the possible new GM green logo and other company names, the name Western Electric sounds so 1800 ish or early 1900s. Other similar old sounding company names were Western Union and Westinghouse.
Hopefully, new GM logo or new name won't be something stupid like "New GM".
The 'green' logo is a rumor, Detroit News said no logo changes.
All the blather about Buicks and older drivers. Whenever I see an older driver in a Buick it usually is an older model year, like a 1996 Skylark/Century. I have not seen a late model LaCrosse/Lucerne/Enclave with tiny old /man lady peeking over dashboard. And, these newer cars are usually moving with flow of traffic.
I see many beige Toyotas putting along at 45 on expressways/tollways in Chicago area, OTOH. Or when light turns green these same drivers accelerate as slow as a horse and buggy. [and most of them are middle aged people]
Oh, I had one of those old school Western Electric phones not to long ago. The receiver alone weighed more than ten modern telephones. The dial was actually made out of steel.
Truth in advertising - instead of the traditional blue or that silly green let the background be red until GM pulls themselves out of the red and pays back the loans...
I kind of like Corporate Mongrels.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
In reading the article is does not say it was available on any 4-door, nor is there any mention of a manual. And the first sentence does state "Turbo T", which is also known as the T-Type - kind of used interchangingly, just as all of them have been referred to as Turbo Regals, GNs (even when it's a T-Type) or when people refer to all Camaros as Z28s. My bad, should have been more clear. As is also stated the T-Type went away this year, somewhat replaced by the "Turbo T" - I've seen these and most consider these T-Types as well. I must admit I have never seen one with a manual; if there are ones from the factory they are well hidden and never brought out.
But it again begs the questions, knowing the power output of the pressurized motor - what manual did they put behind this 3.8L? Why go through the time and hella expense of certifying the manual for one model year, knowing the '88s were going to GM10? Lastly, considering the purpose of the GNX being the GN to end all GN - wouldn't this one have had the manual option? :confuse: :confuse:
Comments
My brother had one of these babies and was cut off out on L.I. and sliced a telephone pole in half as a result. Walked away unscathed but the beauty had to be junked. :sick:
He got a 1964 Malibu next!
Regards,
OW
I've always heard conflicting stories though, on how well-built the '58 Chevies were. On one hand, they had that wasp-waisted X-frame, which you'd think would allow for more twisting, which would make for more rattles. And I'd also think it would fare pretty poorly in a t-bone wreck. But on the other hand, to account for the lack of side protection and the twisting, the body of the car was beefed up. So while the car was still body-on-frame, some Unibody techniques were applied to the body, so the overall result was a bit of a hybrid of the two.
I always thought the '58 Chevy was a good looking car. I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer it to the '57.
So, GM HAS been building hybrids all along!!!! :P :P
My Mom had the '56, bought new while my Bro. got the '58 17 years later.
You see. I was brought up on GM.... :sick:
Regards,
OW
No other info. Post dated TOMORROW, 7/8/09 at 12:18 am...
Anyway, while I really agree with the secind part of your argument, I'm not sure that's the case with the first part. Bling overkill never infiltrate European cars because continental europeans find them tacky and corny. It's not a matter of reputation alone, its a matter of taste. I've heard a lot of comments from Europeans regarding the new Cadillacs (particularly the CTS), and the said the designs are actually nice and distinctive, but the chrome bathing kills all the appeal.
The New GM...just like the Old GM, only newer.
Not a fan of Motorweek (dry, blah, lifeless automotive reviews IMO), but they had a review of the new Fusion hybrid this week. Wow, 0-60 in a very respectable 7.9 seconds and returns 41/39? along with bluetooth, Navi, leather, moonroof, and a really cool backlit LED dash. I think that car just jumped to the top of my list if I were buying a midsize family sedan/commuter. Only thing I would change would be the dull looking alloys...
Ford did a bang up job with it :shades:
Well it's public television, whaddya expect?! :P That 0-60 in 7.9 seconds catches my attention, though, and is a nice complement to the 41/39. I definitely like the Fusion, and if I was in the market for a new car, it would probably be one of my top considerations. I'd probably just go with the 4-cyl though, as I don't log enough miles to warrant a hybrid, IMO.
GM had to choose between 3 plants to mfr new compact: WISC, TENN, MICH.
GM decided on existing GM plant in Michigan rather than use TENN plant that has state of art painting process/facility costing hundreds of millions. MICH plant will have to be updated with this new painting process. Union and Mich Dems being paid back for their Obama support. Tenn has 2 Republican Senators. UAW agreed to starting pay of $14/hr vs $28/hr standard for building this new compact car.
New car will be out as 2011 model and will be lucky to break even.
---
Do we taxpayers have any chance at all of GM paying us back.
Thanks!
Regards,
OW
Your link isn't working for me but Motor Authority quotes Wards quoting GM that one is in the works. There's one in China I guess.
The Fusion hybrid does look nice. It's a bit pricey and you lose the trunk pass-through because of the battery pack behind the rear seat. Nice mpg though, and the reviewers like driving it better than the other hybrids.
GM News is thin this week. There is this for those heading out on your summer vacation:
Cadillac Ranch
If they can make it to break even, maybe they can actually get to the point of making money on small cars. This is an important thing to accomplish.
1. a Lexus ES competitor by the name XTS
2. The next CTS is gonna be smaller to better compete with class leaders
3. Escalade is also going to be smaller
4. One flagship model to replace both STS and DTS.
My predictions come true :shades:
*****
The last manual transmission available in a larger or midsize car was in 1987 IIRC, as a special order option on the Buick Regal/Century. Usually this was an option on a Grand National, but it could be ordered for a standard car as well.)remember seeing the order sheet in 1986 when I was contemplating a "sleeper" Regal with the Grand National engine and manual. No emblems, interior, or hood changes though. IIRC, only a couple of hundred of these were ordered and still command a decent price if you can find one.
Then it was automatics and front wheel drive since then. This also coincides with their loss in market share. People don't *like* front wheel drive as a rule. They get it because it's "practical" and "the norm", much like how minivans are. So the loss of a manual as an option plus RWD placed GM right in the middle of the "rental/commuter box" category for many people. And the Japanese makers were the best at this segment at the time.
Another useless statistic...for the 1976 LeMans, I found this quote... "Only 8.5 percent of all LeMans intermediates got the Six and 99.8 percent were automatics."
Now, I don't quite know how to read that...whether 99.8% of ALL LeManses were automatics (I suspect this is the case) or 99.8% of all 6-cyl LeManses were automatics. The base transmission back then was a 3-on-the-tree. However, you could get a 400 V-8 with a 5-speed manual...that must have been fun, considering the era. I believe there was also a package where you could get the Olds 260 V-8 with a 4-speed? In 1977, 99.4% off all LeManses were automatic.
I didn't realize you could still get a Regal with a stick by 1987. In looking through the EPA's data, the last most recent year they show a stick shift in a GM intermediate is 1981, and there it's only offered on the Malibu with the 229, or the Century/Cutlass/LeMans with the 231. The Monte Carlo, Regal, and Grand Prix aren't shown as offering it. However, is it possible that if they build few enough of a certain combination, the EPA just doesn't test it?
The EPA's online data only goes back to 1978 (although I've heard that fuel economy in the window sticker actually first started showing up for 1975). It doesn't show any GM full-size cars in 1978 offering a manual shift. I think they actually made the automatic standard in the big cars sometime between 1971-76, but I'm not positive.
In a somewhat bold move, when the FWD GM-10 coupes came out for 1988, the Cutlass Supreme and Grand Prix were offered with a 5-speed manual, mated to a 2.8 V-6. I doubt if very many sold, though. When that hot 3.4 V-6 came out, you could also get it with a 5-speed, at least up through 1993 I think.
Andre,
This is how I remember it as well - the last g-body to have a manual was the malibu and that was with the 229 and was early & rare. IIRC the owners manual for my '81 Calais listed a 4-spd option, but again, that was only for the 231. If pletko is correct and a couple hundred g-body Regals were built with a manual I wonder what trans they used because it definitely wasn't the T5 nor Doug-Nash 4+3 because those things were hella weak and I know it wasn't a T-56 because you would've been talking firewall / floor surgery as well as other system changes and it wasn't even out yet (believe it was intro'd for the '89 or '90 model year Corvette). Chevy was already miffed that GNs were eating Corvettes for dinner at the time (and I won't even get into the GNX). Also, like you stated EPA wasn't going to let that fly, plus the certification $$. And I'm sure one of us car nuts would've known about it.
As far as the "sleeper" Grand National all I know was the T-Type.
GM Logo May Turn Green (AutoObserver)
As far as the "sleeper" Grand National all I know was the T-Type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Regal
**
1987 was the only year that the LC2 Turbo option was available on any Regal, making it possible to even see a Limited with a vinyl landau roof and a power bulge turbo hood.
**
That was the deal - you could get a vinyl or normal top 4 door with the turbo engine in it for 1987. Looked dead-stock other than a bulge in the hood. No GNX suspension or interior or other things. With manual.(checkbox buried in the massive list of options) I still wish I'd custom ordered one...
Of course who would have guessed that in 1988 GM would go FWD and drop almost every last manual other than in the Skylark and a few other worthless things passed off as cars...
Just like they were a green company because they made hybrids...and more hybrid models than anyone else too in fact.
Yep, new GM, just like the old GM, only "new." Which has about as much meaning to them as the words "green" and "hybrid."
http://www.egmcartech.com/tag/2010-buick-lacrosse/
It says to be built in Oshawa. Plans were revealed in the CAW contract.
Release the hounds ( done in a horrible Brittish accent )
http://newyork.backpage.com/AutosForSale/all_new_2010_buick_lacrosse_cxl_be_the_- first_in_the_city_to_own_one_/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=8051985
Well Fritz Henderson said today that GM will focus on four brands, Buick being one, and they'll focus on the environment and fuel economy. So it all fits. (AutoObserver)
(Bvdj84, that wasn't a link for a personal purpose - just treat it as news. Unless Cooterbfd has moved to Kansas
If moving to Kansas is what it takes to get my Lacrosse........ :surprise: .......anyhow, it looks as if it was an ad by a Topeka dealer for NYC. So I guess they'd ship it for me. Too bad it's not the CXS or I'd consider it. It is the right color, after all
I haven't read all the news onsite but it looks like only Wards has the scoop. Fritz is saying today that "GM will offer 10 new models in the next 18 months." So it could be a bit of a wait. (Edmunds Daily)
What does the new CEO guy, Whitacre, think about this? Back when he was running Southwestern Bell and acquiring other telecoms, he renamed his company to SBC Global. But, alas, when he/they acquired and folded in the remnants of the old AT&T, he renamed SBC Global to AT&T for its superior name recognition. But, of course, AT&T never was a disaster and bankruptcy case and it had/has superior name recognition.
New name? Let's see - General Motors Corp. is an anagram for Acorn Promoter Gels. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but it has a nice Obama connection.
Corporate Mongrels fits too.
They should make a break with the old name while retaining some continuity. The new company could be something like "GenM" for the new General Motors - there's a connection to the old company but enough of a change to show customers it is really new. Ideas:
GenM - The new General Motors
GM* - The New General Motors
NGM - New General Motors
GMT - General Motors Technologies (not a time zone!)
GVC - General Vehicles Corporation
USM - US Motors
PMS - Public Motor Systems (sorry, got carried away...)
Rent? Was there not option/provision to buy your own?
A few (rich) people got special phones and got the local telephone utility to install them. Otherwise it was, if not illegal, practically impossible to hook up your own devices to Ma Bell's system.
All that rent over the years - how do you think they were able to afford Bell Labs?
Wiki has the gory details. The door cracked open to answering machines and non-AT&T phones in '68.
One thing that the deregulation of AT&T created: generally crappy hardware. Compared to the well-designed and ruggedly-built Western Electric OEM AT&T phones, the vast majority of hardware out there today for landlines is junk. AT&T spent a lot of research time on developing their phones with an audio bandpass of 300 Hz to 3kHz for maximum voice intelligibility. Most cheap phones today use a condenser mic which has a much broader frequency response range.
Recall that the "rent" option came after phone companies and AT&T unbundled the cost of the phone. Phone companies provided phones to subscribers as part of having telephone service and cost of phone was hidden in monthly bill. When rent option came, one could then buy your own phone OR rent from Bell operating companies that belonged to mother AT&T.
Back to GM. Believe that GM name is about 100 years old and AT&T name is 120. Phonetically, AT&T being a 100 year old name/brand/logo still sounds/looks strong and contemporary. General Motors could simply refer to themselves as "GM" in the future to have a more contemporary/current name. Maybe the White House car/GM czar or Obama will input on this.
I do recall that those old Western Electric phones were practically indestructible.
Speaking of the possible new GM green logo and other company names, the name Western Electric sounds so 1800 ish or early 1900s. Other similar old sounding company names were Western Union and Westinghouse.
Hopefully, new GM logo or new name won't be something stupid like "New GM".
In spite of the heavy use of cheap plastic in the interiors.
All the blather about Buicks and older drivers. Whenever I see an older driver in a Buick it usually is an older model year, like a 1996 Skylark/Century. I have not seen a late model LaCrosse/Lucerne/Enclave with tiny old /man lady peeking over dashboard. And, these newer cars are usually moving with flow of traffic.
I see many beige Toyotas putting along at 45 on expressways/tollways in Chicago area, OTOH. Or when light turns green these same drivers accelerate as slow as a horse and buggy. [and most of them are middle aged people]
That's assuming "GM" doesn't get changed. The rumor mill is working overtime on that one too.
Actually, no I don't hate to be a cynic. It's fun sometimes. :shades:
I kind of like Corporate Mongrels.
But it again begs the questions, knowing the power output of the pressurized motor - what manual did they put behind this 3.8L? Why go through the time and hella expense of certifying the manual for one model year, knowing the '88s were going to GM10? Lastly, considering the purpose of the GNX being the GN to end all GN - wouldn't this one have had the manual option? :confuse: :confuse: