ZJM

Thought maybe you guys might like to read this.. i really like the
SRX, and i've got a ton of cool pictures..

http://www.gm-trucks.com/ART_04SRX_main.shtml

Neo

"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<eLSdncpu89GIR8XdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...

> Check the sales numbers for yourself if you don't believe me.

It's not clear to me from this comment which numbers you're referring
to. But if it's about Cadillac's numbers, the CTS has beaten GM's
estimates by over 30% in sales and Cadillac has grown about 25% this
quarter, year over year.

I'm not a big fan of this design, but the SRX is the most subdued
example.

James C. Reeves

"Neo" <evandro@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:5c8152a9.0403181324.367b7c2a@posting.google.c om...
| "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<eLSdncpu89GIR8XdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...
|
| > Check the sales numbers for yourself if you don't believe me.
|
| It's not clear to me from this comment which numbers you're referring
| to. But if it's about Cadillac's numbers, the CTS has beaten GM's
| estimates by over 30% in sales and Cadillac has grown about 25% this
| quarter, year over year.
|
| I'm not a big fan of this design, but the SRX is the most subdued
| example.

Actually, I saw a SRX on the road today on the way home from the office...I
don't think it look bad in person. I could get used to it. I liked it better
than Chryslers new 300C...but I hadn't seen the 300C in person yet
either...maybe it looks better in person too.

I almost ran him off the road accidentally though. He was behind me in the
center lane when I glanced in the rear-view mirror and I noticed his left
signal was lit...when I moved to change to the right lane to be ready for my
turnoff coming up (3-lane highway) he was already beginning to move up in the
right lane beside me. Huh!? I thought! I apparently misinterpreted his signal
because the turn signals are apparently dual-purpose and used as DRLs on that
model. <sigh> When I glanced in the mirror, the right signal was (I guess)
_off_ in the blink cycle (or burned out) leaving the left signal only _on_ as a
DRL and I naturally thought he was signaling left. Why do they (especially GM)
do this shit to cause ambiguity of a very important signaling device that
should be used for signaling only (in my humble opinion)!!! <geesh!> They're
going to kill us yet with all these different DRL designs...apparently they've
never heard of _protocol_...never heard of _standards_. :-(

Harry Face

I haven't seen any SRX's on the road yet, but see quite a few sitting on
the Caddy lot. I think the base price was around $38,000

I sat in two of them at the Chicago Auto Show. It was nice, comfortable,
good head room. Option prices were quite steep. AWD drive was around
$1900, the Skyview sliding roof was also $1900.

Essentially its a 4 passenger wagon IMO.
I doubt you'd squeeze three adults in the second row bench seat.

Most of you know my stance on thrid row seats that are " floor level " -
its for the Yorkshire Terrior or a child who's legs don't extend beyond
the front edge of the seat cushion, but with todays laws the kid would
have to be in a car seat anyway.

As far as the latest LeSabre's looks are concerned I don't care for the
2000-2004 style. I like the dashboard layout. IMO, I don't think their
"catchers mitt " style front seats are anything to rave about. The rake
back on the rear seat is also uncomfortable and the cushion is weak and
unsupportive.

I think Buick & all the other manufacturer's could come up with a better
idea than their miniscule 1 Bulb Brake / Tail light design. I loved
that huge taillight that was on the 92-99 Century.

My aunt ( age 80 ) bought the 1999 style LeSabre and loves it. She's
glad she didn't wait for the 2000. A friend has a 2002 and he likes his
& thinks it looks alright.

Based on the LeSabre's good reputation that may sway people into buying
the car.



=========
Harryface
=========

1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE
3800 V6 ( C ), Black/Slate Grey
_~_~_~_~277, 933 miles_~_~_ ~_~_

James C. Reeves

"Sting Ray" <Sting_Ray(no spam)@vette.com> wrote in message
news:hk76c.36488$TxJ.32260@news04.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
|
| Not in my neck of the woods James. Most seem to favor LeSabres. Although
| there are a number of big Fords around too. And as with the LeSabres, the
| old folks buy them because they're big. They don't necessarily buy them for
| the design. Big cars imply safety to people who play "bumper car" in the
| parking lots and on the roads.

Could be a regional thing. The LeSabres here are mostly undented and very well
kept, so must not be used as bumper cars here. Most are driven here by 50-ish
folks on up (men and women). Curious though, if rounded design is a problem,
why come out with the new Buick LeCrosse in the form it is?

| Uh James, they can't afford the SRX.

I don't know, they're buying BMW M5's (and other similar) like nobody's
business around here. (which amazes me to no end)

| Time will tell.

I think the design will probably catch on. I don't think it's that bad myself.
Have you seen the new GMC Canyon truck? Striking! But, I'd bet most people
won't like it the 1st time they see it.

| James, by definition, "universally accepted" means accepted throughout the
| universe. Even if we were to bastardise the definition to mean accepted
| throughout the world or even throughout the U.S., the LeSabre is clearly not
| universally accepted. So James, it isn't and I'm correct.

Websters? Or, Oxfords? ;-) Listen to what I mean, not what I say (as my
father used to say)

| James, if you like the changes that are taking place, why would the rate of
| change matter? I'm always happy when a product I like comes quickly to
| market.

Human nature. Radical change that happens before "people" (used in the broad
term) are ready for it _can_ doom it to a niche segment before it begins.
Where a slower introduction of the styling queues will bring a greater number
of people along with it over time as they warm up to it. The majority of
people need some time to get used to large/radical changes. Now, that isn't
necessarily "bad". Those that are part of the niche segment (and you probably
fit with your choice of wheels), prefer to have a "different" set of wheels
from everybody else anyway. But, I had thought that Cadillac was trying to get
market share from that M5 crowd and that crowd is still buying M5's (which are
aero-rounded styles, by the way)

I'm in a technology field, so rapid change is what I'm used to...not a big deal
to me either.

| Let me see if I have this correct James. You say "I don't remember
| ever seeing one on the road, actually...only on TV
| commercials".

One was behind me in the center lane on the way home from work today and passed
by me on the right. I almost hit him by accident, but that's another story.
I'm certain that it's the 1st one I've seen in person now.

| You also say ""Most people I know, in fact, have a
| spontaneous negative reaction to the designs when they do see one (usually
| yeeuuww!)." So the only logical interpretation of your two comments is
| that most people you know have given their "spontaneous negative reaction" a
| fter viewing the SRX on your television. Now that is really strange! The
| only way we can ascertain whether or not an action is spontaneous is to
| witness it.

That is correct. I have a 56" HDTV projection widescreen TV. I have more
friends, family, co-workers and neighbors now-a-days than I had
before...especially for high definition broadcast sporting events! :-) Good
thing I keep well stocked on munchies too I guess!

| Oh right, you and most of your friends saw it on your television. ;-)

That's my recallection. I'll keep a log next time with dates and times and
what show/event was on. <grin>

| James, it is somewhat incredulous that most of your friends saw the SRX on
| your television and that most responded negatively. Unless of course, you
| have few friends. Hmmm? Your unwillingness to actually respond directly to
| the questions posed causes me to once again ask "were you perhaps stretching
| the truth to garner favor with your opinion?"

Believe what you will...no matter.

| James, for the last time, I have indeed seen numerous cars over the years
| that most people reacted favorably and unfavorably to. But I have never
| witnessed a universal reaction to any of them. ;-)

Sounds like semantics. Change "universally" to "generally" or "widely" on all
previous statements. Maybe that helps? :-)

Sting Ray

"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsf6dnWY0YJPyrcfdRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Could be a regional thing. The LeSabres here are mostly undented and very
well
> kept, so must not be used as bumper cars here. Most are driven here by
50-ish
> folks on up (men and women). Curious though, if rounded design is a
problem,
> why come out with the new Buick LeCrosse in the form it is?

James, I didn't say that rounded design is a problem. I said that it
appeals to an older buyer and you finally agreed with me when you said that
"Most are driven here by 50-ish folks ". Surprise, Surprise - the Buick
LaCrosse will be marketed to the same demographic target.

>
> | Uh James, they can't afford the SRX.
>
> I don't know, they're buying BMW M5's (and other similar) like nobody's
> business around here. (which amazes me to no end)

James, you conveniently left out your post that I was responding to. I was
responding to your comment "Young like most anything cool for the
moment...but trend to the ricers," James, if in your last post you say that
they "trend to the ricers", how can you now say "they're buying BMW M5's
(and other similar) like nobody's business around here." James if they are
trending to the ricers, as I stated "they can't afford the SRX". Nor for
that matter could they afford the BMW M5's! What the heck are you rambling
about James? Pardon the expression, but you can't suck and blow at the same
time!!! If I may borrow a line from a tune by Kris Kristopherson, "You're a
walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction"!!!

>
> | Time will tell.
>
> I think the design will probably catch on. I don't think it's that bad
myself.
> Have you seen the new GMC Canyon truck? Striking! But, I'd bet most
people
> won't like it the 1st time they see it.

By your definition, would that make the Canyon universally disliked? Or does
that term only apply to cars you don't like? ;-)

>
> | James, by definition, "universally accepted" means accepted throughout
the
> | universe. Even if we were to bastardise the definition to mean accepted
> | throughout the world or even throughout the U.S., the LeSabre is clearly
not
> | universally accepted. So James, it isn't and I'm correct.
>
> Websters? Or, Oxfords? ;-) Listen to what I mean, not what I say (as my
> father used to say)

Every dictionary James. Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

>
> | James, if you like the changes that are taking place, why would the rate
of
> | change matter? I'm always happy when a product I like comes quickly to
> | market.
>
> Human nature. Radical change that happens before "people" (used in the
broad
> term) are ready for it _can_ doom it to a niche segment before it begins.

Are you referring to the Edsel, James? Heh, Heh!

> Where a slower introduction of the styling queues will bring a greater
number
> of people along with it over time as they warm up to it. The majority of
> people need some time to get used to large/radical changes. Now, that
isn't
> necessarily "bad". Those that are part of the niche segment (and you
probably
> fit with your choice of wheels), prefer to have a "different" set of
wheels
> from everybody else anyway. But, I had thought that Cadillac was trying
to get
> market share from that M5 crowd and that crowd is still buying M5's (which
are
> aero-rounded styles, by the way)
>
> I'm in a technology field, so rapid change is what I'm used to...not a big
deal
> to me either.

Sadly, many people are completely out of the loop when it comes to
technological change. At least with cars, they all have wheels, so it
becomes a matter of personal styling tastes. Although, now they also have a
choice in engine technology and a myriad of options.

>
> | Let me see if I have this correct James. You say "I don't remember
> | ever seeing one on the road, actually...only on TV
> | commercials".
>
> One was behind me in the center lane on the way home from work today and
passed
> by me on the right. I almost hit him by accident, but that's another
story.
> I'm certain that it's the 1st one I've seen in person now.
>
> | You also say ""Most people I know, in fact, have a
> | spontaneous negative reaction to the designs when they do see one
(usually
> | yeeuuww!)." So the only logical interpretation of your two comments is
> | that most people you know have given their "spontaneous negative
reaction" a
> | fter viewing the SRX on your television. Now that is really strange! The
> | only way we can ascertain whether or not an action is spontaneous is to
> | witness it.
>
> That is correct. I have a 56" HDTV projection widescreen TV. I have more
> friends, family, co-workers and neighbors now-a-days than I had
> before...especially for high definition broadcast sporting events! :-)
Good
> thing I keep well stocked on munchies too I guess!

How do you spend so much time in the GM newsgroup when you have so many
friends mulling about in your home? <grin>

>
> | Oh right, you and most of your friends saw it on your television. ;-)
>
> That's my recallection. I'll keep a log next time with dates and times
and
> what show/event was on. <grin>
>
> | James, it is somewhat incredulous that most of your friends saw the SRX
on
> | your television and that most responded negatively. Unless of course,
you
> | have few friends. Hmmm? Your unwillingness to actually respond directly
to
> | the questions posed causes me to once again ask "were you perhaps
stretching
> | the truth to garner favor with your opinion?"
>
> Believe what you will...no matter.
>
> | James, for the last time, I have indeed seen numerous cars over the
years
> | that most people reacted favorably and unfavorably to. But I have never
> | witnessed a universal reaction to any of them. ;-)
>
> Sounds like semantics. Change "universally" to "generally" or "widely" on
all
> previous statements. Maybe that helps? :-)

It's really not semantics James. It is proper English. The words
"generally" or "widely" would definitely have been closer to the truth. Say
what you mean. Mean what you say.

James C. Reeves

"Sting Ray" <Sting_Ray(no spam)@vette.com> wrote in message
news:yUs6c.53542$uUx1.26338@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
|
| James, I didn't say that rounded design is a problem. I said that it
| appeals to an older buyer and you finally agreed with me when you said that
| "Most are driven here by 50-ish folks ". Surprise, Surprise - the Buick
| LaCrosse will be marketed to the same demographic target.

I guess 50 didn't seem that old to me. Hmmm...it used to! :-)

|
| James, you conveniently left out your post that I was responding to. I was
| responding to your comment "Young like most anything cool for the
| moment...but trend to the ricers,"

Not intentional, my mistake.

| James, if in your last post you say that
| they "trend to the ricers", how can you now say "they're buying BMW M5's
| (and other similar) like nobody's business around here."

I misunderstood the demographic you were referring to, apparently.

| James if they are
| trending to the ricers, as I stated "they can't afford the SRX". Nor for
| that matter could they afford the BMW M5's! What the heck are you rambling
| about James? Pardon the expression, but you can't suck and blow at the same
| time!!! If I may borrow a line from a tune by Kris Kristopherson, "You're a
| walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction"!!!

I can see why you came to that conclusion. Don't know much about sucking and
blowing though. <g>

| 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?

|> Human nature. Radical change that happens before "people"
|> (used in the broad term) are ready for it _can_ doom it to a
|> niche segment before it begins.

| Are you referring to the Edsel, James? Heh, Heh!

I'm not that old! :-)

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!

| Sadly, many people are completely out of the loop when it comes to
| to technological change. At least with cars, they all have wheels, so it
| becomes a matter of personal styling tastes.

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!

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. :-(

| Although, now they also have a choice
| in engine technology and a myriad of options.

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)

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?

| How do you spend so much time in the GM newsgroup when you have so many
| friends mulling about in your home? <grin>

Other than March madness not much going on in HD right now. Becides, my old
Compaq laptop in on my ethernet network so I can multitask in front of the TV!

| It's really not semantics James. It is proper English. The words
| "generally" or "widely" would definitely have been closer to the truth. Say
| what you mean. Mean what you say.

I'll keep the dictionary handy from now on. ;-)

Levi Ramsey

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:15:19 -0500, James C. Reeves wrote:

> The fact that one hardly ever see these new Cadillacs on the road, the
> sharp-angled chiseled design look must not be universally well received. Most
> people I know, in fact, have a spontaneous negative reaction to the designs
> when they do see one (usually yeeuuww!).

I see quite a few on the road in Western Massachusetts, which is not
traditional Cadillac territory.

Judging by the sales figures, it seems that someone is buying the CTSs
(50k per year, which is quite good for the BMW 530 competitor that it is)
and XLRs (sold out very quickly).

SRX has been a slow seller for the same reason that the Chrysler Pacifica
has been: the early production runs were too high-priced for their own
good. The high-50K SRX (with the Northstar) gets slaughtered by both the
other car-based SUV/wagons and the Escalade in that segment. The 40K SRX
(with the 3.6) kicks the ass of everything in that range.

In addition, the CTS is the sharpest-edged of the bunch, being the
statement car. The XLR is smoother, as is the SRX, and the STS will be
even more rounded.

Cadillac is earning a lot of kudos from car design buffs for not trying to
copy BMW (which is exactly what every other luxury make is doing now,
though whether they'll follow BMW into Pontiac-clone territory is
debatable).

--
Levi Ramsey
levi@cygnetnet.net

How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is, after all, so poorly lit...
Currently playing: Rush - Caress of Steel - Fountain of Lamneth
Linux 2.6.2-3mdk
21:04:00 up 13 days, 21:20, 12 users, load average: 0.46, 0.49, 0.40

James C. Reeves

"Levi Ramsey" <levi@cygnetnet.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.03.20.02.10.24.420840@cygnetnet.net. ..
| On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:15:19 -0500, James C. Reeves wrote:
| I see quite a few on the road in Western Massachusetts,
| which is not traditional Cadillac territory.

Glad they're moving somewhere.

| SRX has been a slow seller for the same reason that the Chrysler Pacifica
| has been: the early production runs were too high-priced for their own
| good. The high-50K SRX (with the Northstar) gets slaughtered by both the
| other car-based SUV/wagons and the Escalade in that segment. The 40K SRX
| (with the 3.6) kicks the ass of everything in that range.

I see quite a few a more Pacificas...at least around here.

| Cadillac is earning a lot of kudos from car design buffs for not trying to
| copy BMW (which is exactly what every other luxury make is doing now,
| though whether they'll follow BMW into Pontiac-clone territory is
| debatable).

Car design buffs are in the same category a movie critics as far as I'm
concerned. Too often what they like, most everyone else seems to dislike and
vise-versa. But, sometimes they hit it right! :-)

Sting Ray

"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.