LINC400

We're not going there.

The bake light on my oven is optional. You can turn it on or leave it off when baking. Brake lights on cars ,however, are for the safety of other drivers. Seat belts are not. They only affect the person wearing or not wearing it.

You have obviously never lived in suburban Chicago where the crime rate is low and the police are quite bored. Granted not all cops are bad, but I worked for a gas station that held the contract for state and local police towing. They would come in and tell their stories. Some would make your skin crawl or blood boil. IE they just had to stop that hot chick in the covertible even though she wasn't doing anything wrong so that they could get a better look down her blouse. (and that is nothing compared to some stories) All they do around here is ticket. When they are actually needed for something, they are very slow to respond. That is not just one police dept. but most of the 15 around my specific area. Without getting into a big political discussion has someone heard something about an Illinois governor being corrupt? As far as insurance, all they have to do is put in a clause that they don't have to pay if seat belts were not worn. They seem to find all kinds of clauses to get out of paying all the time.

So then you should be ticketed every time you drive your Buick.

As I said before, it is not about safety, it is about choice. I usually wear my seat belt. But it annoys me immensely that I can drive all the way home with it on, pick up my mail, forget to buckle it for 2 blocks with no traffic at 20 mph down a side street, and can get a ticket and lecture from a cop. Then he does a U-turn in front of oncoming traffic, turns on his lights for no reason, and goes 65 mph in a 30 mph zone to meet his buddy at Dunkin Donuts. Or I can sit in traffic for an extra 20 minutes making me late for work because the police have decided to set up an ambush roadblock. Of course motorcycles are exempt because they have so many safety features, unlike cars.

Red tips on toy guns, balcony railings and the like are indeed safety issues. While the police like to make you think seat belt laws are a safety issue, it is not about safety. It is about revenue. One of the local radio stations used to announce when the local police would set up one of their seat belt ambush roadblocks, give the location, and tell listeners to wear their seat belts. They would also encourage listeners to call in with this info. They don't do it anymore. When many of the listeners kept asking why, finally one DJ said that they were ordered not to by the police department and can't say anymore for legal reasons. If the police were truly concerned about safety, they would be happy this radio station was telling people to buckle up. They were not. Instead they threatened the radio station with legal action because they were afraid it might reduce their ambush revenue.

I don't think it is. He apparently doesn't want to wear a seatbelt and thinks it should be his choice. I agree. Safety is obviously not the issue as it is much more unsafe to be on a motorcycle in flip flops, shorts, no shirt and no helmet than in a 5000 lb. car with no seatbelt. Yet that is legal on a motorcycle. I get a ticket in my car.

Whether seat belts save lives is not my issue. I think it is ridiculous that someone in Illinois can ride a motorcycle with shorts and flip flops, no shirt and no helmet, yet I can be ticketed for driving in an enclosed 5000 lb. vehicle without a seatbelt. When they set up an ambush ticketing every driver without a seatbelt, the police certainly are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in revenue. People can smoke themselves to death, drink themselves to death, and ride a motorcycle with zero protection. But I can get a ticket driving the 2 blocks to pick up my mail down an unused side street at 20 miles an hour because I forgot to put my seat belt back on.

They also built their own cars that were not hearses sometime in the 1920's-30's.

No, just have a book with production statistics. I'm sure there must be a Falcon club that can help you though.

I can't see any of those working with a Honda

11,591

Yes, they have been replaced by truck testicles.

You can't really think of it that way if you are going to use your Mercury on vacations. When you are on vacation, you eat out, stay at motels, go to museums or other places with admission, pay way too much for just about anything you can do cheaper at home. But vacations are about having fun, at least in my book. So in the same regard, your Mercury is going to cost more for gas than a Honda or Prius. But which will be more fun for you to drive? Which one will be more memorable when you look back on vacations years from now, and which one will actually be able to pull a trailer? Yes the Mercury might cause you to cringe at the pump, but that will be quickly forgotten as soon as you get behind the wheel. Besides, what percent of your budget is going to be for gas for the Mercury compared to what you will spend for everything else? I drive my Lincoln with 460 4bbl to car shows all over the place. Yes the daily driver gets better mileage, but it isn't anywhere near as fun. Plus the Mercury is not going to be driven all the time. Only on special occassions or trips. A guy in the Lincoln club sold his 1959 convertible when gas hit $4.50 a gallon last year. I told him take it to local shows if you can't afford to go far, don't sell it. He sold it. Now he regrets it.

If the car is running well and properly tuned, your gas mileage should be around 10-13 city and 12-16 highway. This is not specific to a 1967 Mercury, but a general average for larger engine Ford products. I would not be concerned with a few mpg more or less. However, if you are getting 8 mpg regularly, then you can figure something is wrong. Otherwise if the car is properly tuned and adjusted, and there are no leaks or clogged lines or filters, I would not focus on gas mileage. You just put gas in it and enjoy it. Mileage was not a selling point of these cars. I would only worry about it if it suddenly gets a lot less mpg than it was before.

Very cool. But the problem is they're not writing songs about new Malibus and Cobalts either.

I have no idea whether old Saturns were any better than the newer Saturns and couldn't care less. The early Saturns specifically had no GM badging or anything associated with GM reflected in their literature and advertising because they wanted them to sell to people that bought foreign cars. So they sold quite well to people who bought foreign cars and were clueless about who made it. Now they rave about their wonderful "foreign" Saturn, and condemn GM, who built it. That is the type of clueless idiot that causes problems for the Big 3. Then reporters that normally review movies or charity balls hear about this and report it as fact. Then others read this and believe it to be 100% true fact. That is what causes the anti-American sentiment. Clueless people. My understanding is that people are not buying ANYTHING, foreign or domestic. I believe Toyota and Hondas sales are down as well as GM and Chrysler. I believe Toyota just surpassed GM as the number one auto maker for the first time in 50 years. Do you know what that means? It means in order to be the number 1 automaker for the last 50 years people had to be buying them. And even at a close number 2, people are obviously still buying them, otherwise they would not be number 2. I think that is pretty impressive considering most GM's sell here, not in Europe or Japan. Most people buying an Accord or Prius this year will buy it because their old car was getting worn out, they got a really good deal, they were worried about the price of gas. Not because they saw it on the street or at the auto show and thought it was so cool they had to have one. Only a Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang is going to get someone to go out and make an unnecessary purchase in a bad economy because they saw it and just had to have one.

It's not wanna be Buicks. As I said, most people that put these on their cars have no clue that this a Buick trademark. It is just the latest bling that they have to put on their car because everyone else does.

The reason foreign car companies are taking a large chunk of business away from Detroit is not because of spectacular vehicles. Why are all foreign car companies now selling SUV's? Those are what's wrong with Detroit. So why did all the foreign car companies copy them? Look at any message board about the Big 3 bailout. You will see all the clueless idiots spouting all kinds of anti-Amercian BS. My Chevy got a flat tire after I ran over a nail and Chevy wouldn't give me a new one, so now it's nothing but Hondas for me, blah blah, blah. I had no clue about all this anti-American sentiment until I stared reading some of these. People get these ideas from the media and other clueless idiots. The truth is, there have been good and bad cars from both foreign and domestic mfrs. But the "in" thing to do is blast all the domestics and rave about the foreign companies. So that is what everyone does. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if half of these people had no clue about who even made their car. A few weeks ago, I had this guy telling me about how he had one of the early "good" Saturns, before GM took them over and ruined them. This is the kind of idiot spouting anti-GM stuff. And people that know nothing about cars will listen and repeat what he says. A couple neighbors stated they would never buy an American car. They love their foreign cars. One has a Saab. The other has a Land Rover and a Jaguar. No they are not pre GM and Ford cars either. Years ago the Big 3 knew how to build cars to draw people into the showrooms. And then they put some of those ideas into the mainstream cars. Now everyone just copies everyone else. If I am going to spend money on a new car, I want something with power, style, and some excitement. Sorry, but a Prius, Fusion or Malibu do not meet my description of that. There is no way I am driving a boring four door egg or box. I don't care if it gets 100 miles to the gallon and costs $3 a year to maintain. If I don't like it, I'm not buying it. If I'm buying an furnace, I'm concerned about effiency, and fuel savings, and low maintenance. When I buy a car, I want something that screams look at me, enjoy me, floor me, not I have the highest mpg and look like a toaster. The Chrysler 300 and Charger did draw people into showrooms and sell. But how exciting are they supposed to be 6 years later with no changes? That is the problem with Detroit. Ford manages to keep excitement going with the Mustang. However, their problem is that they think the Mustang is the only car that should have any type of high performance engine. The complaints I hear from people that like American cars is that they are not stylish and interesting like they used to be. Not that they do not look enough like a Honda or get too low of gas mileage. If the Big 3 want to sell cars, they need to build cars that are exciting and desirable. There are plenty of foreign high mileage appliances. The Big 3 need to build cars like the Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang. Cars that the foreign mfrs can't build. And then translate some of that perfomance and excitement into their mainstream cars. How about something as simple as color for excitement. My 1976 Lincoln came in 26 colors with almost as many interior combinations. And it was profitable. Yet now you are lucky to have a choice of more than 5 colors with an interior of gray or black (tan is getting hard to find). 26 colors might be excessive, but how about offering a red or blue interior? I don't think offering a few colors is going to put anyone out of business. The last auto show that I went to, I listened to the critics gushing over the latest blandmobiles. My comment was, if there were no old cars with style and personality, only new cars, I would have no interest in cars at all. From 1950-1979, I can think of dozens of cars that I would love to own from each year. From 1990 to present, I am lucky if I can think of 5 that would be ok from each decade.

Buick portholes and similar diamond and other weird shaped portholes are on everything in Chicago from Navigators to Kias. They are sold at Walmart and most auto parts stores, and I'm sure most idiots that put them on a non-Buick have no clue that these are/were a Buick trademark. Especially considering I have seen idiots putting them on the bottom of the quarterpanel and even on "A" pillars. I was actually going to put some on my Regal until they started showing up on everything. Now I don't want them.

Yes, but the problem is they didn't have the Camaro until now. There has been not much of interest for the last few years. The Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang are the only interesting things coming out of Detroit. And I am not even a fan of muscle cars. However, the foreign companies have absolutely nothing of interest to me and never have.

Isn't it amazing that in 1976 Lincoln offered 26 exterior colors, almost as many interior and vinyl top colors, in any combination you wanted, and they managed to be profitable. Now you get 5 colors, a choice of charcoal or black interior (tan is getting hard to find), and everybody is bankrupt.

I have a hard time believing that the new GM and Chrysler will be developing anything new other than 4 door, high mileage appliances in the next few years. Not the type of car that is going to get me to part with my hard earned cash.

I like the pinky mauve Lincolns and Cadillacs of the mid to late '70's. Also the array of aqua and turquoise both offered during that time. Many people ask if mine is the original color. The identical matching interior should be a clue, but I guess people have a hard time believing that you could get cars in colors other than shades of gray years ago. If most of the LeSabres had a burgundy interior with Rose Mauve, I would guess it would be much easier to just find a LeSabre with a burgundy interior and repaint it Rose Mauve. You would have the extra work of painting all the jambs, but I think it would be much easier than waiting for another Rose Mauve one to show up. A guy on the Lincoln Forum just found an early '60's Lincoln with pinky mauve interior. He wants to gut it and replace it with beige. Ugh, what a shame as I'm sure that is probably a very rare interior.

Ok After Duryea was mentioned, I looked at the plate again. It appears that the car on the plate is pretty much identical to the AACA Duryea logo. And it does say automotive not Ford DJ. Apparently the first Duryea was built in 1895, but they were first sold in 1896. The same as the Ford DJ was for 1903 not 1896 when Ford built his Quadricycle. So I do think it was for Duryea or more generically the automobile in general. I am aware that the Henry Ford is not part of Fomoco and is a museum for all kinds of things, not just Fords or even automobiles. But I do not know of any Ford specific museum in the midwest, unlike the Packard and Studebaker museums. So if you want to see Ford history or buy Ford memorabilia, you go to the Henry Ford. I've been there about 6 times.