"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fPSdncM2l5OKFMbdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> I guess 50 didn't seem that old to me. Hmmm...it used to! :-)
Sadly, that's beyond middle age! Unless you have really good family genes.
I'm too close!
> Not intentional, my mistake.
>
> I misunderstood the demographic you were referring to, apparently.
James, I was merely addressing the demographic you brought up.
> I can see why you came to that conclusion. Don't know much about sucking
and
> blowing though. <g>
It's not bad, if you're on the receiving end! ;-)
>
> | By your definition, would that make the Canyon universally disliked? Or
does
> | that term only apply to cars you don't like? ;-)
>
> Just comparing the design queues being similar sharp angles, and chiseled
etc.
> _may_ prompt similar reaction. I've not witnessed any to this point so
maybe
> they'll be "universally" liked! :-) Did I say I didn't like it?
Nope! You said "I'd bet most people won't like it the 1st time they see it."
To which I responded: "By your definition, would that make the Canyon
universally disliked?"
>
> I'm not that old! :-)
Hmm, I may have given away my age.
>
> That being said, I suppose car manufacturers have to go out on a limb
> occasionally. Sometimes a radical concept can catch on and the $$$ come
> pouring in. Take Chrysler's retro PT Cruiser. I've witnessed the same
types
> of response to that initially that I hear now to the SRX (and some other
> Cadillacs) Yet the PT sells fairly well. Perhaps price was a factor...it
was
> really cheap (in a few meanings). Maybe it was the 1930's nostalgia look
or
> the fairly good utility for some. Who knows. But damn! Same sort of
thing
> for the Pontiac Aztec...prompts some fairly violent negative reaction from
some
> too...and I agree with that one...I even say yuck!
>
> The Chevy SSR will be a interesting one to watch. But I think it's
probably
> too expensive (40K+) to be universally accepted...oops, I mean
> "generally/widely" accepted. :-) But, hey, who knows! It's a neat
trick in
> my book though!
FWIW, I dislike the PT Cruiser for quite a number of reasons. They are
supposedly retro, but I don't recall ever seeing a Chrysler product that
looked anything like them. The closest resemblance IMO is the early 50's
Chevy Panel Wagon. Sadly, they are way underpowered and there are simply too
many on the road. Which tells me that a lot of other people like them
though. The Aztec is an automotive abomination IMHO. The Chevy SSR,
however, really appeals to me with it's real retro look because I know what
it's styled after. Also, I drove one for a day and while it's no powerhouse,
it is fun to drive and still attracts a crowd in any parking lot.
> I agree. My neighbor (and his wife) have owned their 2002 LeSabre for 2-3
> years now and still don't know how most of the stuff on it works. They
still
> drive around all day every day with all the lights on (tail, side-marker
> regular headlamps...not DRLs). They tried to figure out how to get them
to go
> off...they gave up. By gosh, GM is making cars that are as easy to use
for
> some people as the old-style VCR!
A lot of those old VCR's are still flashing 12:00! :-)
>
> I'd just like to see GM do better overall. It bothers me that their
market
> share just keeps going down and down though. When customers can't figure
out
> how to work them can't be a good thing either. :-(
It bothers me too James, but we have to remember that there are far more
manufacturers in the market now, vying for U.S. market share. And the world
has become a smaller place with a global economy.
> I disagree with that statement. There were many more option choices on
> vehicles 30 years ago. Options are very limited now in comparison. When
my
> father ordered my mother's 1969 Impala Custom Coupe, (loved that car!) the
> engine options were relatively numerious. Get the 240ci inline 6 or the
327,
> 350, 396 or SS 427 V8's. With the engine choice you could get even more
> granular with a single-barrel, 2-barrel or 4-barrel carb. With the
Caprice
> option you could add hidden headlamps...or not (same in 1968). Or you
could go
> cheaper and go with the Biscayne/BelAir, manual windows/locks, no A/C,
etc.
> Hell, if you want the Impala today...you're stuck with 4-doors...a sedan,
no
> coupe option. In 1969, both the coupe or sedan were available in the
Biscayne,
> Impala or Caprice. You could get a center console with auto tranny or
4-speed
> manual tranny shifter with buckets OR the column automatic shifter with
bench
> seat. I think you're forced with the center console and automatic tranny
today
> (could be wrong on that)
You're in for further discussion on options James. Since you mentioned "A
convertable Monte would be nice..where is it?", I went to
http://www.chevrolet.com/monte_carlo/model_ls.htm and discovered that the
base 2004 Monte Carlo LS itself has 23 options!!! Sadly, none of the 23
options included the convertible package you would like! :-Þ And the 23
options don't include technological items like DVD players and MP3 players
that are available on some vehicles. I agree with you that there were more
models from each manufacturer in the "old days" and there were a lot more
engine options. Thinking back though, the Biscayne, BelAir, Impala and
Caprice models all shared the same basic body and the same frame. The S/S
options were simply that, options. But as far as real options, I really
think that there are far more available today.
> Now, I realize that economics, parts inventory (and probably quality
concerns
> too) has forced them to limit choices quite a bit. But heck, even
Chrysler's
> cheap Sebring or Honda's Accord can be had in a coupe OR sedan (or
> convertable)...GM isn't even competitive option wise with the domestics
> sometimes, let alone the foreign brands! They killed the Camaro and the
> Caprice (dumb as hell in my opinion on both...should have refreshed them
and
> kept them in the lineup). Where can you get a reasonable priced Chevy
> convertable? A convertable Monte would be nice..where is it? I bet it
would
> sell well. BTW, either of your Corvette's convertables?
Body styles are another issue and you're right that GM doesn't offer many of
their models with options of coupe/sedan/convertible/hatch back, etc. but
they do offer these choices under different brand names. I assume that from
GM's vantage point, that's good economics. I thought that the Camaro and
Firebird were beautiful cars but they just weren't selling in large enough
numbers to warrant their continuation. It's a money game and if the ROE and
ROA's not right, it's a good business decision to either improve sales
somehow, cut production costs or discontinue production and ramp up another
model that's making the margins. As far as convertibles go, I don't know
whether or not the Sunfire or Cavalier are still available as convertibles
but they hold little appeal for me anyway, even as a convertible. And the
convertible Vettes and SSR's are out of reach for many people.
Hey, you have a good memory James. I did have 2 Corvettes. A 2001 Z06 and a
mid-year. The Z06 had to go because I only have a two car garage and it was
hard to justify having two summer cars in the garage while my Bonneville and
my wife's Grand Prix sat in the driveway in the snow. The mid-year is a '63
and it is a convertible or roadster as it is more commonly called by Vette
enthusiasts. The '63 is much more distinctive and fun to drive. But the Z06
was nice too and handled a lot better!
I've been rambling on for far too long. Later.