Dave@Moon

The first time I ever saw one of the then new 3rd generation of the Grand Cherokee (2005-2010) was on I-71 in Ohio. There had been 4 inches of snow and the plows were still out. The left lane was still partially snow covered but the right lane was quite clear. The Jeep in the median, on it's roof. I saw six other wrecked cars between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati that day. Every one of them were AWD SUVs

Honestly, having driven both extensively, I don't prefer either. Give me a good 2WD car with good tires (and if rear wheel drive a limited slip dif) and I'm happy. AWD & 4WD help prevent being stuck, make it easier to get underway in slippery conditions, and allow you to be a little more ham-fisted a driver while underway before one or the other sets of wheels break loose (but only at slow speeds). The added weight of the systems add to braking distances, the added weight is mainly unsprung increasing vertical and lateral momentums once the wheels are broken loose, and the systems themselves result in a higher vehicle with a higher center of gravity increasing instability. In addition the supposed safety of AWD & 4WD imbues the driver with a false sense of security that is more dangerous than almost anything. Statistically these factors are born out in winter driving statistics for 4WD & AWD vehicles, which despite their "advantages" show no reduction in accident or injury rate in winter driving. In addition allof these factors result in increased fuel consumption relative to 2WD equivalents year-round, which is not an insignificant consideration. A good set of tires, and well set up traction control system, and an understanding driver are far more important factors in winter driving safety than any one drive system. http://www.vnutz.com/articles/4WD_Vs_AWD_And_The_Fallacy_Of_Snow_Traction http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2003/12/the_physics_of_.html

...obviously based on the MG TD. There were many kit car versions of the TD, and this appears to be one of the more obscure ones. Interesting/offbeat hardtop, though. I don't think it's one of the VW based versions, though. The wheels appear too small (13"?), although the exhaust is spot-on for a VW.

:mad: "All Right! You guys knew that camper was out there. Which one of you was the one shouting 'Here Scotty! Come on Scotty!'":mad:

If only Evel Knievel were alive today!:cool:

If you search eBay.uk for "semaphore trafficators" you'll find a number of NOS and aftermarket sets that you can use. Most will ship worldwide. See: http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/semaphore-trafficators

I agree. 1910-12 era Packard. Expanded image.

Commodore is right. That number lens was sold on eBay recently as for a 1940 Chrysler, and the 1946-48 lens I thought it was (while similarly fluted) has a flatter face than this one.

This article was published today on Yahoo Autos. It's got a new take on measuring the reliability of used cars, especially older models not covered by Consumer Reports et al. It's an interesting read. http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/car-dealer-scientific-guide-10-worst-used-vehicles-222709616.html This link to the data for the 10 best and worst performing models is provided in the article: http://members.wolfram.com/nickl/QualityIndexRating.html

It may be different in other states, but here in Ohio it's 3.

1946-48 Chrysler.

The grille looks pretty much the same between 1937 and 1938, but the badge at the top changed slightly. This one is from 1938. The 1937 badge had more detail in the wings, and is slightly smaller.

Here ae two of the more popular books on the subject that are currently in print: http://www.amazon.com/How-Restore-Your-Collector-Car/dp/0760335419/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389502967&sr=1-1&keywords=car+restoration http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Restoring-Collector/dp/1592572340/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389502967&sr=1-15&keywords=car+restoration Either one should be available locally, or at least through an inter-library loan at your local library. If you have a specific car in mind, it would be better to look for a book specifically on that marque like: http://www.amazon.com/Restore-Triumph-Enthusiasts-Restoration-Manual/dp/1903706467/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389503316&sr=1-3&keywords=triumph+tr6+restoration Take your time and have fun. This is definitely one of those areas where the hunt is at least as fun as the kill! :cool:

1955 1956 PONTIAC REVERSE LIGHT CHROME BEZELS http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-1956-PONTIAC-REVERSE-LIGHT-GLASS-LENSES-CHROME-BEZELS-5945735-P96-/310809406371?nma=true&si=YA%252BqUZcu5pQCwD34Drv%252B0fYuBZE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

That was my point exactly. By mentioning the number dealerships as a measure of how far one would be from one, I was defining 'commonly available" as in available for purchase. not available for an evening's cruise. I would argue that cars became "commonly available" long before they became "common", the same way personal computers and flat screen tvs did. If you lived in Greenwich Village or Hell's Kitchen in 1905 and had $1000 to spend, a car was certainly "commonly available" to you. In say 1915, many people may not have owned a car or even knew someone who did, but if they had that $1000.00 to spend on a Thursday they could buy a car. And they probably wouldn't have to travel very far to do it, even in some quite rural areas. By 1920 (I'm guessing) doubt there wasn't a home in the U.S. within a day's ride by horse of a car dealership of some kind. If you can get something in a day if you have the money, I'd call it "commonly available".

#1 condition in my 2010 book lists the car as worth $88K, $11K more than a similar '57 Chevy BelAir hardtop. A drivable, HPOF-worthy barn find '69 Boss 302 in totally unmolested, rust-free condition could be a low-$100K figure car by those standards. It's all about supply/demand. After all they only made 1.628 '69 Boss 302s. They made over 48,000 '57 BelAir convertibles, and they're worth considerably more ($110K in #1 condition) than the Boss 302.

"Commonly available"...? For me it was when I was 25. Seriously I think a better measure would be (if the information is available) a chart or graph of the number of car dealerships in the United States over time. There are about 3300 counties in the U.S. At the point where there were (IMHO) about 10,000 new car dealerships in the U.S., given some accounting for the concentration of dealerships in more populated areas like New York, there was probably a dealership of one sort or other (mainly Ford) with a day's reasonable travel of most American homes. At that point I think the phrase "commonly available" is pretty well satisfied. Does anybody have that info? I haven't been able to find it on the internet.

Both fit all 1960 Buick, not just Electra.

For 53 different "AACA"s, see: http://www.acronymfinder.com/AACA.html

1. "Ralph, when I told you to stand under the car for a photo I didn't think you'd be dumb enough to do it!":eek: 2. Unfortunately Mr. Brown had intended his burial inside his favorite car to occur after his death. No doubt he was sorely disappointed (briefly). 3. "And to think I almost bought a roadster with a soft-top!":o

Definitely!:cool:

That much is certainly true enough. However the question at hand is what should happen re. "GM's current situation". Rehashing the past isn't going to be productive, and will have NO bearing on any decisions made in the GM boardroom (in as much as we can pretend to be suggesting things to them). The truth is that today's GM, while still suffering from vexing uneven product quality, has 4 rather distinctive product lines/"brands" (I consider GMC and Chevy trucks essentially the same thing, despite efforts on their part to distinguish them). At least they are as distinctive from each other as the former GM divisions' products used to be. My take on it is does one expect the seed of today's Buick to grow into something in the U.S. similar to it's heyday or it's current status in China. In other words, does GM today have the faith in it's products that it used to?:confused:

1975 Triumph TR6 (mine is in the foreground).

Why are you guys talking about what went wrong 20-40 years ago? The thread was started over the potential changes to be made to today's GM. To wit: Checking U.S. 2013 calendar year sales through November, the Chevrolet brand is 70.1% of GM sales. GMC is 15.9%, Buick is 7.5%, and Cadillac is 6.4%. Of course the profit margin isn't the same on every vehicle, however the huge markup on pickups and SUVs probably makes up for the difference between the markup on an XTS and a Sonic. Therefore the sales figures probably are a good guide as to a brands' various profitability. GM could lose Buick, if only in the U.S. (making it basically into China's Opel). However, is the American Buick customer more likely to buy a fancy Chevy, or move on to Lexus/Volvo/Mercedes/etc.? GM has to know from past experience that customers from lost brands are not coming back. They couldn't even sell Buicks to orphaned Oldsmobile customers when they were basically the same car. Rationalization of the dealer structure is certainly in order. Perhaps there's no reason for Buicks and Caddys to have stand-alone dealerships any more, and GMC dealers may have some changes coming as well. However it would be hard to eliminate anything that's left of GM without abandoning a significant part of the market.