http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-02-11?Page=1
Frickin' techo dorks. I'm a computer guy, and that's just wrong.
As the Queen would say: "We are not amused."
Shoe has far better car related strips.
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8519%2F8567688045_f2d7ae3a48_o.png&hash=d72c8e10cbd34933d50dff1819688f04cfb96180)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8514%2F8567687869_a6f04366e2_o.png&hash=360534653b603e1322189c6b083bb202b7eadce0)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8234%2F8567687803_2395c72ff0_o.png&hash=8fe61a5e899491907076de452622e66a4261c442)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8385%2F8567687663_6c00124ce8_o.png&hash=ec3a80c4e416074808ab4773e2983c464d0bf648)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8089%2F8568785134_b0edfe7303_o.png&hash=952f192e6394e5a7f74d8b94ed79dbff94e0af9b)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8108%2F8567687277_825d2f0669_o.png&hash=270c06107f0c4a267ef4432765c51ccbe2394d1c)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8246%2F8567687237_3b2e7a38d8_o.png&hash=bdfa53c8e71932266ecc09fff2a96ab4ff055db0)
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8086%2F8568784638_8ce0514185_o.png&hash=4ed0107c151f4517a77b74fc0f13a707aebf0cd7)
I love the comic strips above, but one of the comments on the Dilbert bit was rich.
(Paraphrasing) Young lad watching his father restoring an old car, says " When I grow up, I want to restore an old car too." Dad looks up with busted knuckles and grease all over, and replies "You can't do both!"
Art Woody
I liked that one too.
Couldnt have said it better.
Roy
I like the fuel injection one.
Remember the Midas commercial where the customer calls and asks if his car is done? The service person says he has got his 3 best guys on it and shows 3 big dudes sitting on the hood eating lunch.
My all time favorite Shoe cartoon was a three paneled daily strip showing Cosmo and Skyler sitting down to watch Cosmo's favorite show on auto restoration. The last panel showed the words "Welcome to This Old Heap" coming out of the TV. For those that don't get the reference, it's a take off of the popular PBS show "This Old House".
Jeff
I was selling my wire's SL Mercedes a while back. Two guys showed up to look at the car, one stranger than the other. Real strange.
The one guy came into my garage and asked me why I was "hoarding" Cadillacs, but he did like the Mustang in the corner, which was actually a 93 Allante.
I explained to him that I collect vintage Cadillacs and he just looked confused.
The first guy then told me that he was legally blind and had to think it over.
'Ya never know...
Brian
I remember a Sunday "Shoe" comic strip that was a take off of the 80's Lincoln ads where people couldn't tell their Cadillac from an Oldsmobile or Buick, etc. Of course the payoff was that Shoe had no trouble identifying his car. I loved the final frame which showed a huge pink tailfin towering over a sea of grey blobs like a scene from "Jaws".
-mB
Quote from: 76eldo on March 19, 2013, 02:00:04 PM
I was selling my wire's SL Mercedes a while back. Two guys showed up to look at the car, one stranger than the other. Real strange.
The one guy came into my garage and asked me why I was "hoarding" Cadillacs, but he did like the Mustang in the corner, which was actually a 93 Allante.
I explained to him that I collect vintage Cadillacs and he just looked confused.
The first guy then told me that he was legally blind and had to think it over.
'Ya never know...
Brian
Nothing strange about a blind person looking to buy a car. Thats why the driveup ATM's have the keypads in Braille.
Quote from: mgbeda on March 19, 2013, 02:28:56 PM
I remember a Sunday "Shoe" comic strip that was a take off of the 80's Lincoln ads where people couldn't tell their Cadillac from an Oldsmobile or Buick, etc. Of course the payoff was that Shoe had no trouble identifying his car. I loved the final frame which showed a huge pink tailfin towering over a sea of grey blobs like a scene from "Jaws".
-mB
LOL This one;
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8376%2F8573580364_ba294fd797_b.jpg&hash=5c8e5c43cfe6131e4a98832a560544b4ff6feccd)
Quote from: David Smith on March 19, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
LOL This one;
(https://forums.cadillaclasalle.club/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8376%2F8573580364_ba294fd797_b.jpg&hash=5c8e5c43cfe6131e4a98832a560544b4ff6feccd)
Funny but sadly so true. All top of the line Buicks Olds and Cadillacs all looked the same. I still shake my head, how GM ever thought they would be able to keep their lead in car sales.
Which is which?
This one: http://youtu.be/SaZqQLpbjFU (http://youtu.be/SaZqQLpbjFU)
Quote from: David Smith on March 19, 2013, 08:39:04 PM
This one: http://youtu.be/SaZqQLpbjFU (http://youtu.be/SaZqQLpbjFU)
I remember that commercial. GM really set themselves up for that shot at them! This was the beginning of the end for GM and Cadillac, for quite some time.
Cadillac actually had a come back to that commercial featuring the Brougham. It was very similar showing a weathly couple having their Town Car pull up by the valet. "I like a big car" the man says to another well dressed couple. "So do I" says the second man as his new Brougham is pulled up by the valet. "And mine is bigger than your car". Then the second couple get in and drive away in the big Cadillac Brougham leaving the first couple slack jawed.
Quote from: David Smith on March 19, 2013, 08:55:03 PM
Cadillac actually had a come back to that commercial featuring the Brougham. It was very similar showing a weathly couple having their Town Car pull up by the valet. "I like a big car" the man says to another well dressed couple. "So do I" says the second man as his new Brougham is pulled up by the valet. "And mine is bigger than your car". Then the second couple get in and drive away in the big Cadillac Brougham leaving the first couple slack jawed.
Sort of weak if you ask me, especially since the Brougham was the top of the line, and not one of their mainline models, which most people would buy.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 19, 2013, 08:10:59 PM
Funny but sadly so true. All top of the line Buicks Olds and Cadillacs all looked the same. I still shake my head, how GM ever thought they would be able to keep their lead in car sales.
Trouble is the truth is in the cartoon. All cars now look exactly the same. A top of the range Hyundai, even close up looks like everything else in the car parks.
The sooner the makers realise that looks outweigh design and safety, we will get cars that look different, but, sadly, that will not happen in the near future.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 19, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Trouble is the truth is in the cartoon. All cars now look exactly the same. A top of the range Hyundai, even close up looks like everything else in the car parks.
The sooner the makers realise that looks outweigh design and safety, we will get cars that look different, but, sadly, that will not happen in the near future.
Bruce. >:D
I can not agree with that. Yes, for the most part many cars of today, look similar. Unlike in the past, when looks was very important to the buying public, looks aren't really what sells cars today. With the cars looking similar, I think the factors that draw people to dealerships are reliability, price and gas mileage. Ironically I think it is GM that has the most products that somewhat more stylish, not to forget Chrysler products which has very imaginative looking cars.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 19, 2013, 08:46:46 PM
I remember that commercial. GM really set themselves up for that shot at them! This was the beginning of the end for GM and Cadillac, for quite some time.
Despite similar looks, they did sell well at the time.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 19, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Trouble is the truth is in the cartoon. All cars now look exactly the same. A top of the range Hyundai, even close up looks like everything else in the car parks.
Cars looking too much alike, or complaints about such, is far from unique to today. This has been a complaint from some people going back 50+ years.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 09:16:14 AM
Cars looking too much alike, or complaints about such, is far from unique to today. This has been a complaint from some people going back 50+ years.
50 years ago? 1963? Not the way I remember it. I think the different marquees were still very distinguishable. Enthusiasts still could tell make and year a block away.
I can still give you year and make of these cars.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 09:12:55 AM
Despite similar looks, they did sell well at the time.
Yes they did a decent job of selling, but the total sales was on the decline since 1986.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 20, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
50 years ago? 1963? Not the way I remember it. I think the different marquees were still very distinguishable. Enthusiasts still could tell make and year a block away.
I can still give you year and make of these cars.
Yes, even back the 1960s. Below is part of the copy from a Chevrolet ad in 1962 as just one example. Advertisements, newspaper columns, editorials, etc. have had comments about cars looking alike for many decades.
As the same time, it is not uncommon for people to be more "connected" to and be able to more easily identify cars of their youth than modern cars. It happens generation after generation, decade after decade.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 20, 2013, 09:31:00 AM
Yes they did a decent job of selling, but the total sales was on the decline since 1986.
But sales still stayed above 260,000 through the end of the 1980s. It wasn't until 1991 when sales took a dive to below 215,000 and then to 180,000 in 1995.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 10:29:14 AM
Yes, even back the 1960s. Below is part of the copy from a Chevrolet ad in 1962 as just one example. Advertisements, newspaper columns, editorials, etc. have had comments about cars looking alike for many decades.
As the same time, it is not uncommon for people to be more "connected" to and be able to more easily identify cars of their youth than modern cars. It happens generation after generation, decade after decade.
Advertising is meant to be sell products and shouldn't be taken as gospel. I remember a local Chevrolet dealer in the 70's that showed the front of a Cadillac and the front of a Cadillac, and said why pay more? The same was done by a local used Cadillac dealer that advertised why spend more for a Chevy, then a quality "previously owned" Cadillac.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 10:34:13 AM
But sales still stayed above 260,000 through the end of the 1980s. It wasn't until 1991 when sales took a dive to below 215,000 and then to 180,000 in 1995.
260,000 is a far cry from the from the 1978 total of 350,000!
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 20, 2013, 11:22:42 AM
Advertising is meant to be sell products and shouldn't be taken as gospel. I remember a local Chevrolet dealer in the 70's that showed the front of a Cadillac and the front of a Cadillac, and said why pay more? The same was done by a local used Cadillac dealer that advertised why spend more for a Chevy, then a quality "previously owned" Cadillac.
The 1962 ad is no more gospel than the Lincoln Continental commercial you responded to but as I said, it was just one example. People have been commenting and complaining about modern cars of given eras looking alike for generations!
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 20, 2013, 11:28:31 AM
260,000 is a far cry from the from the 1978 total of 350,000!
Yet not nearly as bad as the sales drop to 180,000 in 1995 and then 170,000 in 1996. Despite a slow start to the 1980s due to economic factors, average sales of the 1980s were still largely in line with sales of the 1970s. It was the 1990s that became a different story. Competition from the nouveau luxury imports that started to take hold in the 1990s is what hurt Cadillac.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
The 1962 ad is no more gospel than the Lincoln Continental commercial you responded to but as I said, it was just one example. People have been commenting and complaining about modern cars of given eras looking alike for generations!
The Lincoln ad was based on fact. There really isn't denying that the Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Buicks of that era were sometimes difficult to tell apart, especially to those that aren't what might be called car enthusiasts. Agreed people are and have been always complaining about cars for generations. The difference was the complaints have changed over the years.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 20, 2013, 01:05:27 PM
The Lincoln ad was based on fact. There really isn't denying that the Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Buicks of that era were sometimes difficult to tell apart, especially to those that aren't what might be called car enthusiasts. Agreed people are and have been always complaining about cars for generations. The difference was the complaints have changed over the years.
The Lincoln commercial was no more or less "fact" based than the 1962 Chevrolet ad I posted or the sample ad copy clips I've included below from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
I for one had and have no trouble distinguishing the 1980s FWD Buick Electra from the Cadillac DeVille from the Oldsmobile 98 but once again, this issue with cars looking alike has been a complaint of some for generations and therefore has also been used in marketing pieces for generations.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 20, 2013, 02:49:00 PM
The Lincoln commercial was no more or less "fact" based than the 1962 Chevrolet ad I posted or the sample ad copy clips I've included below from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
I for one had and have no trouble distinguishing the 1980s FWD Buick Electra from the Cadillac DeVille from the Oldsmobile 98 but once again, this issue with cars looking alike has been a complaint of some for generations and therefore has also been used in marketing pieces for generations.
Both my remarks concerning the Lincoln add and the similiar looks of the Buicks, Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles pertain to the 1985-86 models. I don't ever remember growing up in the 50's ever hearing about cars looking the same.
I could never understand why since the beginning, cars of a similar year
looked so much alike. Why did it take DECADES to get rid of the running
boards, and widen the passenger compartment to the same as the fenders?
To be really conspicuous, I take the yellow 79 Eldo.
The basic issue with keeping old cars on the road, is periodic maintenance.
But my late 70s cars require far less maintenance than 50s & 60s. I don't
think they are getting much better any more, just more expensive. My
well maintained 77 has made many a trip from the north to south borders
of the US, and also east coast trouble free at average speeds around 66 mph.
And 19 mpg for a 6.6L 4150 lb car that only cost $4000. It is now a contest
to see if it can outlast a Honda here, which has been to the dealer a lot more.
The number will be more than 300,000 miles. Bruce Roe
Quote from: bcroe on March 20, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
I could never understand why since the beginning, cars of a similar year
looked so much alike. Why did it take DECADES to get rid of the running
boards, and widen the passenger compartment to the same as the fenders?
To be really conspicuous, I take the yellow 79 Eldo.
The basic issue with keeping old cars on the road, is periodic maintenance.
But my late 70s cars require far less maintenance than 50s & 60s. I don't
think they are getting much better any more, just more expensive. My
well maintained 77 has made many a trip from the north to south borders
of the US, and also east coast trouble free at average speeds around 66 mph.
And 19 mpg for a 6.6L 4150 lb car that only cost $4000. It is now a contest
to see if it can outlast a Honda here, which has been to the dealer a lot more.
The number will be more than 300,000 miles. Bruce Roe
Are cars really getting more expensive? Yes the prices are up there, but adjusted for inflation, are they really any more expensive then years gone by? I really don't know. For a true comparison, we would need a total car cost, including maintenance, comparison. I think cars today are better built and have better warranties.
Quote from: Louis SmithAre cars really getting more expensive? Yes the prices are up there, but
adjusted for inflation, are they really any more expensive then years gone by? I really don't know. For
a true comparison, we would need a total car cost, including maintenance, comparison. I think cars
today are better built and have better warranties.
The measure is, how many months does it take a middle class wage earner to make the price
of a mid range car? Its way up. Part of that is because they are far more complicated. They
do OK until repairs are needed. A broken headlight for my 77 is $10; new molded in can be hundreds.
Overhaul kit for my alternator $25, install the alt in 10 minutes. A Honda alt is $500 and you have
to remove part of the suspension to install it. ON and ON. Once the wiring starts to go, the new cars
are doomed; no problem on mine. Warranties are OK initially, but they are irrelevant when cars are
well past 200,000 miles (like everything here, including the Honda). See my 77 bumper sticker.
Bruce
Quote from: bcroe on March 20, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
The measure is, how many months does it take a middle class wage earner to make the price
of a mid range car? Its way up. Part of that is because they are far more complicated. They
do OK until repairs are needed. A broken headlight for my 77 is $10; new molded in can be hundreds.
Overhaul kit for my alternator $25, install the alt in 10 minutes. A Honda alt is $500 and you have
to remove part of the suspension to install it. ON and ON. Once the wiring starts to go, the new cars
are doomed; no problem on mine. Warranties are OK initially, but they are irrelevant when cars are
well past 200,000 miles (like everything here, including the Honda). See my 77 bumper sticker.
Bruce
Thanks to longer term financing opportunities and low LOW payment lease deals, new cars are more easily attainable today than in the past. This is particularly true for one time luxury brands. Cadillac lease payments in the $200s? Unheard of in the past, adjusting for inflation.
Pricing is lower on many cars too. Since Honda has been mentioned, 30 years ago a Honda Accord sedan (which was actually smaller than today's Civic sedan) without even air conditioning started at nearly $20,000 in today's dollars. A Civic LX, LOADED by 1980s standards, starts at only $19,000 today.
Today's cars are also lasting notable longer as far as both years and mileage.
My experience, a 50s car was pretty worn passing 120,000 miles. By the 60s
cars could coaxed past 200K with a great deal of maintenance. The late 70s
with electronic alternator & HEI would do 200K with far less maintenance.
Those engines if properly serviced, seem to be capable of many more miles.
Heading to 300K takes a lot more of mufflers, suspension rebuilds, U joints,
water pumps, etc, but is doable. I think the latest cars don't reach that point
as soon, but when they do, they are entirely unaffordable to repair. Once
they reach the age of the cars I drive, the electronics will fail with no new
parts available, and they are doomed (this is already starting to happen).
When I was at the Ho..da dealer waiting for repairs (too complex for me to do),
I noted there was nothing below $30K on the floor for the tinyest car there,
and $40K and up for anything else. That doesn't jive with the above at all;
however these cars all seemed to have some kind of outrageously expensive
wheel & trim package. Maybe that was the wrong dealer. Bruce Roe
Quote from: bcroe on March 20, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
The measure is, how many months does it take a middle class wage earner to make the price
of a mid range car? Its way up. Part of that is because they are far more complicated. They
do OK until repairs are needed. A broken headlight for my 77 is $10; new molded in can be hundreds.
Overhaul kit for my alternator $25, install the alt in 10 minutes. A Honda alt is $500 and you have
to remove part of the suspension to install it. ON and ON. Once the wiring starts to go, the new cars
are doomed; no problem on mine. Warranties are OK initially, but they are irrelevant when cars are
well past 200,000 miles (like everything here, including the Honda). See my 77 bumper sticker.
Bruce
I couldn't agree with you more. The only thing I could add is that I think a cars are affordable if people stay within their budgets, and don't buy a car they really can't afford. It seems to me that a low range car, has more standard equipment then cars 20+ years ago. Yes there is no such thing anymore as a cheap repair. It is for this reason that I have been leasing for over 20 years. No surprises! I know up front what the costs of ownership is going to be. All I have to pay for extra is gas and oil changes.
Quote from: bcroe on March 21, 2013, 09:38:32 AM
When I was at the Ho..da dealer waiting for repairs (too complex for me to do),
I noted there was nothing below $30K on the floor for the tinyest car there,
and $40K and up for anything else. That doesn't jive with the above at all;
however these cars all seemed to have some kind of outrageously expensive
wheel & trim package. Maybe that was the wrong dealer. Bruce Roe
The Honda Fit, slightly larger than the Civics of decades ago, starts at only $16,200. Even the Accord which is much larger than any car Honda had offered decades ago starts at only $22,500. And these are for LOADED cars by yesterday standards.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 21, 2013, 11:06:01 AM
The only thing I could add is that I think a cars are affordable if people stay within their budgets, and don't buy a car they really can't afford.
This goes for houses too!! Look at how much the average size of houses has grown over the years. People were no longer satisfied with a reasonably sized, comfortable house and instead continued to want more and more and more, sometimes going beyond their means.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 21, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
This goes for houses too!! Look at how much the average size of houses has grown over the years. People were no longer satisfied with a reasonably sized, comfortable house and instead continued to want more and more and more, sometimes going beyond their means.
Ah the infamous "Real Estate Bubble"! Not sure, but I think currently prospective buyers have to qualify themselves before they can purchase cars or homes. I think this is especially true, when leasing cars, as it seems more and more manufacturers are offering deals, with no money down and very reasonable monthly payments.
So, houses are getting bigger; PEOPLE are getting bigger; but cars are still shrinking... Never in my life did I ever think I'd see Cadillac trucks and station wagons. Nor do I think we'll be seeing them (or too many) on the field at Hershey or other large shows 25 years from now.
I think the problem started when the accountants forced out the car guys. The car guys (and even the engineers) knew that style was the great differentiator. The bean counters thought they coukld make more money by making all of the widgets the same. Why would I pay +20K for a ykon with a Cadillac badge?
First, thanks so much to Dave Smith for posting that Shoe cartoon; I've remembered that for years and now I have my own copy.
I was born in the mid 60's and I think cars in general started heading downhill in the late 70's and even worse in the late 80's. Then around 2000 they started coming back. In some ways we are in a new golden age of automobiles, or were until recently. A Camry with a V6 can keep up with a tri-power GTO, and get high 20's for MPG. Also I note than when I was young you were very lucky to get 100,000 miles from a car before it was junked, but now 100,000 miles is what I'd consider a clean used car. So horsepower, MPG, and reliability is way up. Oh, and so is safety. The downsides of modern cars are 1) With a few exceptions, some of which are "retro" cars (Mustang, Charger) styling really does seem to me very boring and generic, which may have to do with converging on the perfect aerodynamic shape 2) They don't break often, but when they do break you can't fix it and you'll pay many hundreds or thousands to the people that can.
Let's face it, if I liked new cars that much I woudn't be on this forum.
-mB
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 21, 2013, 12:42:54 PM
Ah the infamous "Real Estate Bubble"! Not sure, but I think currently prospective buyers have to qualify themselves before they can purchase cars or homes. I think this is especially true, when leasing cars, as it seems more and more manufacturers are offering deals, with no money down and very reasonable monthly payments.
One would hope banks and other lending institutions have learned their lessons but I am not yet convinced it will stick long-term, at least not for things like car loans. I keep hearing and reading about subprime loans being back on the rise again.
Quote from: gmurph on March 21, 2013, 01:55:52 PM
I think the problem started when the accountants forced out the car guys. The car guys (and even the engineers) knew that style was the great differentiator. The bean counters thought they coukld make more money by making all of the widgets the same. Why would I pay +20K for a ykon with a Cadillac badge?
Enough people did to make the Escalade (including Escalade ESV and Escalade EXT) Cadillac's best seller in 2006 and 2007.
Actually, the price difference between comparably equipped GMC Yukons and Cadillac Escalades really isn't quite that great. Even AWD Yukon Denalis start at over $60,000.
When I arrived on US Soil for a visit in 2002, I couldn't believe my own eyes when I saw a Chevrolet 4WD Wagon with a Cadillac Badge on it. I thought someone had customised their Chev, but, no, it was true.
From then on, I thought that Cadillac had lost their way.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 21, 2013, 06:59:12 PM
When I arrived on US Soil for a visit in 2002, I couldn't believe my own eyes when I saw a Chevrolet 4WD Wagon with a Cadillac Badge on it. I thought someone had customised their Chev, but, no, it was true.
From then on, I thought that Cadillac had lost their way.
"Texas Cadillac" had been the name used to refer to Chevrolet/GMC Suburbans even before Cadillac created it themselves with the Escalade.
I personally wish Cadillac never got into the SUV game but I guess they felt it was necessary to help deal with CAFE standards. They also wanted to experience some of the success Lexus was seeing with its Land Cruiser-based SUV and Infiniti with its Pathfinder-based SUV.
Quote from: mgbeda
I was born in the mid 60's and I think cars in general started heading downhill in the late 70's and even worse in the late 80's. Then around 2000 they started coming back. In some ways we are in a new golden age of automobiles, or were until recently. A Camry with a V6 can keep up with a tri-power GTO, and get high 20's for MPG. Also I note than when I was young you were very lucky to get 100,000 miles from a car before it was junked, but now 100,000 miles is what I'd consider a clean used car. So horsepower, MPG, and reliability is way up. Oh, and so is safety. The downsides of modern cars are 1) With a few exceptions, some of which are "retro" cars (Mustang, Charger) styling really does seem to me very boring and generic, which may have to do with converging on the perfect aerodynamic shape 2) They don't break often, but when they do break you can't fix it and you'll pay many hundreds or thousands to the people that can.
Let's face it, if I liked new cars that much I woudn't be on this forum. -mB
My feeling is cars got a bit smaller, to a more practical size in the
late 70s. But you could still buy 350, 403, and 425 powered cars
that moved them quite well. And they still could be equipped
with the rugged TH400 transmission. These cars had greatly
reduced maintenance with electronic alternators & ignition forced
by emissions requirements. And with valve rotators & hardened
valve seats, valve jobs became a thing of the past. After the better
part of a million miles daily experience, I have found these engines
to be more durable (if somewhat less powerful) than anything proceeding
them. And unlike my 60s cars, they are happy with todays crap 87 octane.
Starting in 1980 the big engines & transmissions went away. They
fumbled around with cars that ran OK but were pretty gutless. Then
they got into much smaller cars and started improving engine
performance. The performance of todays engines is amazing in
view of their size. But they started putting them in plastic midgets
that I have no desire to own. The maintenance was reduced even
more; good thing, because any significant repair is at staggering
cost. More and more complicated, more computers. Bugs are
popping up that even the mfgrs are having difficulty solving. The
operators seem to be more incompetent & less responsible, so
stuff is put in to compensate. I guess they are fine for those with
unlimited funds & no desire to fix anything on their own. Thats part
of why we are so in debt (I'm not). These cars will all be dead when
70s & earlier are still operable. Bruce Roe
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 22, 2013, 09:15:20 AM
"Texas Cadillac" had been the name used to refer to Chevrolet/GMC Suburbans even before Cadillac created it themselves with the Escalade.
I personally wish Cadillac never got into the SUV game but I guess they felt it was necessary to help deal with CAFE standards. They also wanted to experience some of the success Lexus was seeing with its Land Cruiser-based SUV and Infiniti with its Pathfinder-based SUV.
Not only should have Cadillac entered the SUV "game", but they came to the table late. It was obvious early on, that SUV's were the wave of future. Even when they did produce one, it was just a warmed over Chevy Suburban. While Cadillac does have a decent crossover with its SRX, I think they once again dropped the ball. The SRX, while being a impressive looking vehicle, is not what you would expect from Cadillac, in terms of size. They should have made the Buick Enclave the Cadillac, and the SRX the Buick.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 22, 2013, 11:05:54 AM
Not only should have Cadillac entered the SUV "game", but they came to the table late. It was obvious early on, that SUV's were the wave of future. Even when they did produce one, it was just a warmed over Chevy Suburban. While Cadillac does have a decent crossover with its SRX, I think they once again dropped the ball. The SRX, while being a impressive looking vehicle, is not what you would expect from Cadillac, in terms of size. They should have made the Buick Enclave the Cadillac, and the SRX the Buick.
Crossovers and SUVs are clearly a very important segment of the market, I just personally see Cadillac as a luxury car maker not a luxury CUV/SUV maker...for nostalgic reasons.
The SRX has been Cadillac's best seller for the last three years, it's just not my thing...for the brand. I'm more of a car person than a CUV/SUV/pickup person but would also be disappointed if GMC started selling coupes and sedans.
In my little world, I'd rather see Cadillac and even Buick be cars only and let GMC and perhaps Chevrolet take the luxury CUV/SUV role for General Motors but recognize and appreciate that it's a different marketplace today.
I'm a car guy as well, no trucks or Suburban Uhttack Vehicles for me! :P I even tow the boat with the Fleetwood.
Of course I'm running around in a ford F150 out here, but it's the desert, and it's not mine...
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 22, 2013, 12:42:31 PM
Crossovers and SUVs are clearly a very important segment of the market, I just personally see Cadillac as a luxury car maker not a luxury CUV/SUV maker...for nostalgic reasons.
The SRX has been Cadillac's best seller for the last three years, it's just not my thing...for the brand. I'm more of a car person than a CUV/SUV/pickup person but would also be disappointed if GMC started selling coupes and sedans.
In my little world, I'd rather see Cadillac and even Buick be cars only and let GMC and perhaps Chevrolet take the luxury CUV/SUV role for General Motors but recognize and appreciate that it's a different marketplace today.
Nostalgia doesn't sell cars or mostly any other product in the market price. I think that the facts bear out that "cars" are in the majority, with "trucks" being the bigger sellers. At best Cadillac might try to produce a "retro" model.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 22, 2013, 01:40:24 PM
I'm a car guy as well, no trucks or Suburban Uhttack Vehicles for me! :P I even tow the boat with the Fleetwood.
Of course I'm running around in a ford F150 out here, but it's the desert, and it's not mine...
What happens when the Fleetwood, has gone to its final reward? What's wrong with having the best of both worlds. A Cadillac truck pulling your boat!
Quote from: bcroe on March 20, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
The measure is, how many months does it take a middle class wage earner to make the price
of a mid range car? Its way up. Part of that is because they are far more complicated. They
do OK until repairs are needed. A broken headlight for my 77 is $10; new molded in can be hundreds.
Overhaul kit for my alternator $25, install the alt in 10 minutes. A Honda alt is $500 and you have
to remove part of the suspension to install it. ON and ON. Once the wiring starts to go, the new cars
are doomed; no problem on mine. Warranties are OK initially, but they are irrelevant when cars are
well past 200,000 miles (like everything here, including the Honda). See my 77 bumper sticker.
Bruce
I agree with Bruce on this one. Seems mid to late 70s were overall very strong, reliable cars. The only thing is parts. If I could get parts for those cars, including trim as easily as for new cars, I would see no reason to buy anything newer. They can get you from A to B in comfort, style, safety, and on some of the smaller cars, mileage wasnt too bad. Just my opinion.
If they would make the 79 Eldorado today, improve the FI a bit. Add a few air bags and ABS, maybe a few other small improvements. What a great ride that would be.
I was a passenger in a new Ford Focus the other day. Because of the big dash and part between the seats, the car has surprisingly little room for the passenger. My Seville isnt much bigger than a modern Focus, but I can see all round better, and the car has somewhat more space inside. My 87, though not a 70s car has a LOT of interior space. My biggest qualm with modern cars are the big dashes, the lack of bench seats, and the terrible visibility.
Now on top of that are the loud low profile tires, and the direct injection engines that sound like tractors. Drove an Elantra a while ago, and I was not impressed by the noise at highway speed. Not much wind noise, though maybe the engine and road noise drowned that out. And that car does not get 40 mpg. Not in your dreams. Never. My 87 gets 26 mpg highway. If the elantra gets 35 mpg, on 1000 miles, I would pay around $146 in gasoline. The Elantra around $110. For $ 30 I have to put up with a lot more noise, I can barely see out the car, and the car is smaller inside. That is what we get with 25 years worth of technology ?
I will admit that modern cars have a lot more toys. But really. Outside of auto transmission, power steering, power windows, a good stereo, AC and maybe cruise control, everything else is just a gimmick.
Ah Gimmicks. Wasn't it gimmicks that put Cadillac on the top of luxury car heap, in years gone by? Wasn't it Cadillac, that first introduced gimmicks, then the rest of the car manufacturers followed? I for one like the safety and convenience of gimmicks. I like it that my car automatically locks it doors when I start off. I like that my headlights automatically turn on and off. I like the TV camera in my rear showing me what is behind me. I like the radar system, that warns me when a car is in the lane that I want to move to. The list goes on and on.
The trouble with these new cars is that you NEED all the "so-called" safety bits. The automatic locks it doors when you start off, because of the problems with modern society "read Car-jackers". The headlights automatically turn on and off, because people are too lazy to read the Manuals to find where the switches are. The TV camera in the rear showing what is behind, because the cars have virtually no windows that can be seen through, because the head rests are blocking the view. The radar system, that warns when a car is in the adjacent lane, because the side rear-vision mirrors are too small, and because the sides ate so high that one cannot see what is next to you.
When Cadillac made all, these options, the purchaser paid extra for them. Now, the modern purchaser io forced to buy them in the base price, because one cannot get them at a basic price.
Plus, the Makers "con" the buyers into paying more for cars which they buy with all the options, because the Dealers order their Floor Stock fully optioned.
Most buyers are not prepared to order a car, then wait for it to be built. They go to a dealer, and want it now. If the Dealer doesn't have one in stock, they go to the next door dealer. That is why they have the Dealers in one street, or very close together. A bit like the Fast Food industry where they will have a different brand on each opposite corner. If one has a long line, they will go to the next, and so on, till they get served. But, at least they are getting exercise walking to different ones. ;) Oh, that's right, they use the Drive-through. ;)
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 22, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
What happens when the Fleetwood, has gone to its final reward? What's wrong with having the best of both worlds. A Cadillac truck pulling your boat!
A properly equipped Fleetwood can tow 7,000 lbs. No need for a beast.
"Gimmicks" (not necessarily a term I would use) are what Cadillac and other brands have long used to try to separate themselves from each other.
You can talk about today’s "gimmicks" but some people had the same kind of reaction to things like power windows many decades ago. People are too lazy to crank windows? Why do you need such an expensive ($1,000+ in today's dollars back in the 1950s) device that is just going to break down?, etc.
Every "older" generation seems to have something to complain about regarding modern cars vs. cars of their past.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 23, 2013, 02:51:51 AM
The trouble with these new cars is that you NEED all the "so-called" safety bits. The automatic locks it doors when you start off, because of the problems with modern society "read Car-jackers". The headlights automatically turn on and off, because people are too lazy to read the Manuals to find where the switches are. The TV camera in the rear showing what is behind, because the cars have virtually no windows that can be seen through, because the head rests are blocking the view. The radar system, that warns when a car is in the adjacent lane, because the side rear-vision mirrors are too small, and because the sides ate so high that one cannot see what is next to you.
When Cadillac made all, these options, the purchaser paid extra for them. Now, the modern purchaser io forced to buy them in the base price, because one cannot get them at a basic price.
Plus, the Makers "con" the buyers into paying more for cars which they buy with all the options, because the Dealers order their Floor Stock fully optioned.
Most buyers are not prepared to order a car, then wait for it to be built. They go to a dealer, and want it now. If the Dealer doesn't have one in stock, they go to the next door dealer. That is why they have the Dealers in one street, or very close together. A bit like the Fast Food industry where they will have a different brand on each opposite corner. If one has a long line, they will go to the next, and so on, till they get served. But, at least they are getting exercise walking to different ones. ;) Oh, that's right, they use the Drive-through. ;)
Bruce. >:D
With all due respect, none of your statements apply to the modern Crossover vehicles.
"So called safety bits" Surely you jest.
You seem to contradict yourself with the self locking doors. Since you acknowledge the presence of car jackers today, aren't the self locking doors a good idea?
I believe was Cadillac that introduced the "sentinel lights" more then 45 years ago. Why? It gave the driver an added feeling of security when they left their car at night, by giving him/her a lighted path to their front door.
The best feature of the TV cameras, is the ability to see what is directly behind a vehicle that wouldn't normally be able to be seen, such as bicycle on the ground or a small child playing in ones driveway.
Today's modern Crossover vehicles, have greatly eliminated blind spots of the past. Not to mention the over sized rear view mirrors. I might add that I have installed those small mirrors on my rear view mirrors just to give me added vision safety.
I have had SUV's, trucks, vans and crossovers for over 20 years and never felt safer.
The only reason a buyer gets "conned" is because they allow themselves. This is not in defense of dealers both legitimate and unscrupulous. Sure many times a buyer will drive home in more car then they set out to buy, but rarely do they have buyers remorse.
Oh yes, a buyer doesn't have to go to different dealers to get the car they want. Using the Internet, they can "build" the car they want, and the website, will tell them which dealer has the vehicle they want. If the vehicle is at a dealer that is some distance from where the buyer lives, they can simply go to the nearest dealer, the dealer will search out the vehicle on their data base, and have the car shipped to them, at no added cost to the customer. It really is, especially now, a buyers market.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 23, 2013, 04:01:25 AM
A properly equipped Fleetwood can tow 7,000 lbs. No need for a beast.
....but Fleetwoods are no longer produced.
I like ABS. Maybe if I was not in a freezing climate I would not care as much. Guessing if I ever have a real crash I would also like some if the crumple zones and impact beams. Then again who knows depending on the accident maybe being killed instantly in an older car would be a better deal.......
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 23, 2013, 04:01:25 AM
A properly equipped Fleetwood can tow 7,000 lbs. No need for a beast.
The list of 'proper equipment' is likely quite long to achieve that. I would bet it includes a weight distributing hitch which did / does not exist in the factory authorized catalog and they can't be fitted to all types of trailers. Went through that with a new car of mine a few years ago, they advertise its possible but don't offer the parts to do it. When I pressed the issue you should see what they came up with, it was about 200 pounds of aftermarket crap to add to the back of the car that would then void the warranty not to mention make the car drag its rear even before hooking up the trailer.
Ever tow a decent size load with a real tow rig like a dually pickup? I used to think a 1/2 ton or full size car could tow anything and often did tow things much heavier than the car itself. I then owned a dually for a while. Now I am uncomfortable towing 5,000 with a 2500HD. You get much over 5000 and a goose neck or 5th wheel is the way to go. You compare those to a bumper tow and never want to go back either.
Non full floating rear ends don't tend to do well with loads especially long term and the 700 4r 4L60 transmissions found in the 1500 trucks and cars like the Fleetwood had a very weak overdrive so you could not use it towing. Not a huge problem except if you did not use OD you had a lubrication / cooling problem. Those were not issues the 400 or 4L80 had which you got with the 2500+ trucks.
I really don't get how with no real changes to the overall truck the are now getting a 10,000 capacity out of what used to be a S-10 sized rig. You also have to check with the states you will be towing in. Some states have additional rules that kick in if the trailer weighs more than the tow rig. Its actually quite a mess if you are going interstate with a significant load. Only thing that still gets you around most of it is if you qualify as an RV. Even at that you have to be careful how you answer questions by the state patrol. Its one of those annoying government things that seems like it should be easy but will make your head spin till you give up or hire someone else to deal with it.
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 23, 2013, 09:18:02 AM
"Gimmicks" (not necessarily a term I would use) are what Cadillac and other brands have long used to try to separate themselves from each other.
You can talk about today’s "gimmicks" but some people had the same kind of reaction to things like power windows many decades ago. People are too lazy to crank windows? Why do you need such an expensive ($1,000+ in today's dollars back in the 1950s) device that is just going to break down?, etc.
Every "older" generation seems to have something to complain about regarding modern cars vs. cars of their past.
I agree 100%. In the past, buyers wanted Cadillacs to show that they have "arrived".
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 23, 2013, 10:37:42 AM
....but Fleetwoods are no longer produced.
But as long as you don't crash them, they last
forever! 8)
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 23, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
But as long as you don't crash them, they last forever! 8)
That could be said just about for any car ever produced, with the disclaimer, "as long as an owner was willing to pump the money into keeping it running" Of course in a relatively short period of time, the vehicle would be greatly "modified".
My power window story is simple. Every one of my cars with them has had failures. Every
car without them, no failures. Power locks are OK, because there is a manual backup.
I have a shelf of failed & removed stuff I don't need. Power antenna, cruise control, power
trunk pulldown, twilight sentinal, automatic leveling, the rear disks required addition of a
proportioning valve. Please don't even talk to me about electronic throttle. Don't know if
the radio works, haven't turned it on in a dozen years.
Bruce Roe
Quote from: bcroe on March 23, 2013, 04:19:20 PM
My power window story is simple. Every one of my cars with them has had failures. Every
car without them, no failures. Power locks are OK, because there is a manual backup.
I have a shelf of failed & removed stuff I don't need. Power antenna, cruise control, power
trunk pulldown, twilight sentinal, automatic leveling, the rear disks required addition of a
proportioning valve. Please don't even talk to me about electronic throttle. Don't know if
the radio works, haven't turned it on in a dozen years.
Bruce Roe
Why bother to be in the hobby, if all these problems causes you grief? No radio turned on? Sounds unAmerican to me :D ;D :D :o :o
Quote from: Louis SmithWhy bother to be in the hobby, if all these problems causes
you grief? No radio turned on? Sounds unAmerican to me :D ;D :D :o :o
My secret is out. I started driving late 70s cars when they were new, and continue through
today. I started with 60s cars, which needed a lot of maintenance. Could tell dozens of
stories of "mechanics" & dealers messing up my cars, which I would correct myself.
Eventually I just learned to do it all myself. The 70s are simple & need much less
maintenance, parts are cheap. I drive only them every day, ITS NOT A HOBBY. So far,
have never paid more than $9K for a car; saved fortunes on parts & labor. I use 304
stainless plumbing to cut maintenance even more, I just want to drive them. Bruce Roe
Bruce you and me are in the same camp. Since I got involved with, shall we say, older cars, I have always used them quite frequently. Not every day, as there are times when I want reliability, but for all intents and purposes, they are every day cars.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 23, 2013, 10:36:20 AM
With all due respect, none of your statements apply to the modern Crossover vehicles.
"So called safety bits" Surely you jest.
You seem to contradict yourself with the self locking doors. Since you acknowledge the presence of car jackers today, aren't the self locking doors a good idea?
I believe was Cadillac that introduced the "sentinel lights" more then 45 years ago. Why? It gave the driver an added feeling of security when they left their car at night, by giving him/her a lighted path to their front door.
The best feature of the TV cameras, is the ability to see what is directly behind a vehicle that wouldn't normally be able to be seen, such as bicycle on the ground or a small child playing in ones driveway.
Today's modern Crossover vehicles, have greatly eliminated blind spots of the past. Not to mention the over sized rear view mirrors. I might add that I have installed those small mirrors on my rear view mirrors just to give me added vision safety.
I have had SUV's, trucks, vans and crossovers for over 20 years and never felt safer.
The only reason a buyer gets "conned" is because they allow themselves. This is not in defense of dealers both legitimate and unscrupulous. Sure many times a buyer will drive home in more car then they set out to buy, but rarely do they have buyers remorse.
Oh yes, a buyer doesn't have to go to different dealers to get the car they want. Using the Internet, they can "build" the car they want, and the website, will tell them which dealer has the vehicle they want. If the vehicle is at a dealer that is some distance from where the buyer lives, they can simply go to the nearest dealer, the dealer will search out the vehicle on their data base, and have the car shipped to them, at no added cost to the customer. It really is, especially now, a buyers market.
The trouble with modern vehicles is that they need all the aforementioned items as it is impossible for a normally-seated driver to see anything around their vehicles simply because the bet-lines are so high, the pillars so thick, and the rear windows so small that quick observations are impossible. The requirements of roll-over protection and Supplementary Restraint Systems (Air Bags) necessitate that all the pillars be thick to accommodate their fitment, and he hge head rests are in the way. Sit inside any car from 1955 to 1977, and eve up to the late '90's,and with a turn of the head, you can see all four corners of the vehicle, sides, front and rear, clearly and unobstructed, and the roadway and other surfaces not very far away from the vehicle.
The trouble with the SUV's is that people buy them because they are higher up off the road, and they give the idea that they are safer for the occupants. The truth is that they were cheaper to make initially because they didn't have to comply with the same regulations as the dedicated Passenger-carrying Vehicle, as in the Sedan, Coupe or Station Wagon. Th reason these vehicles figure so high in accident statistics is because drivers get out of a sedan with a lower centre of gravity, and attempt to drive the new vehicle in the same way. They forget, or have not been instructed in the handling differences between both types. When you are involved in the aftermath of Fatal and Serious Crashes for dozens of years, it doesn't take long to find out that it was inexperience that caused the SUV to roll over.
I never jest about anything to do with vehicle safety, that is both the vehicle and occupants. Pedestrians, that is a different matter, and even pedestrians should learn the rules of walking on the footpaths safely, and interacting with moving objects, as in not getting hit by them.
The matter of the self-locking doors is sadly a direct response to those in our society that don't "Play by the rules" and try and take what is not theirs to take.
I am glad that the buyer of my own Eldorado opted for the Twilight Sentinel as I had to use it one to get to where I was going after I alighted from the car. It was so dark outside, and with no light on in my destination, I couldn't see a thing. Out in the country, there is no refracted lights from a city that was 50 miles away to assist me.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 24, 2013, 06:59:30 AM
The trouble with modern vehicles is that they need all the aforementioned items as it is impossible for a normally-seated driver to see anything around their vehicles simply because the bet-lines are so high, the pillars so thick, and the rear windows so small that quick observations are impossible. The requirements of roll-over protection and Supplementary Restraint Systems (Air Bags) necessitate that all the pillars be thick to accommodate their fitment, and he hge head rests are in the way. Sit inside any car from 1955 to 1977, and eve up to the late '90's,and with a turn of the head, you can see all four corners of the vehicle, sides, front and rear, clearly and unobstructed, and the roadway and other surfaces not very far away from the vehicle.
The trouble with the SUV's is that people buy them because they are higher up off the road, and they give the idea that they are safer for the occupants. The truth is that they were cheaper to make initially because they didn't have to comply with the same regulations as the dedicated Passenger-carrying Vehicle, as in the Sedan, Coupe or Station Wagon. Th reason these vehicles figure so high in accident statistics is because drivers get out of a sedan with a lower centre of gravity, and attempt to drive the new vehicle in the same way. They forget, or have not been instructed in the handling differences between both types. When you are involved in the aftermath of Fatal and Serious Crashes for dozens of years, it doesn't take long to find out that it was inexperience that caused the SUV to roll over.
I never jest about anything to do with vehicle safety, that is both the vehicle and occupants. Pedestrians, that is a different matter, and even pedestrians should learn the rules of walking on the footpaths safely, and interacting with moving objects, as in not getting hit by them.
The matter of the self-locking doors is sadly a direct response to those in our society that don't "Play by the rules" and try and take what is not theirs to take.
I am glad that the buyer of my own Eldorado opted for the Twilight Sentinel as I had to use it one to get to where I was going after I alighted from the car. It was so dark outside, and with no light on in my destination, I couldn't see a thing. Out in the country, there is no refracted lights from a city that was 50 miles away to assist me.
Bruce. >:D
Bruce, allow me to state how I see things, pun intended. To begin with, I have not purchased a new car, since 1985. Starting in 1991, I started acquiring "Trucks", with a 1991 Chevy Blazer. When I first sat in, I immediately saw how much more safer it was then a car. I was surrounded by glass, basically eliminating any blind spots. The outside rear view mirrors were almost 4X the size of standard car outside rear view mirrors. Yes I did sit higher, which besides, making it easier to get in and out of, gave me a better view of the surrounding traffic. I do think that initially there were complaints of the SUV's flipping over, because of the higher center of gravity. I believe the TV show "60 minutes" did a piece on this. Oh yes this is the same "60 minutes" that did a very negative piece on how unsafe Audi's were, and it really hurt the company. It was later reported that "60 minutes" was less then honest with its reporting. Getting back to SUV's flipping over, they showed how the vehicles were prone to flipping over. Of course they showed this in extreme situations. I don't think in my having SUV's/trucks for the last 22 years, I have ever seen a flipped over SUV on the highway. The way "60 minutes" reported the situation, you would think they were dropping like flies.
By saying that accidents happen when drivers go from a SUV to sedan, just tells me that the accidents are caused by driver error.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 24, 2013, 10:53:33 AM
By saying that accidents happen when drivers go from a SUV to sedan, just tells me that the accidents are caused by driver error.
Louis, you have hit it right on the head.
I have always said that drivers are to blame for 99.9% of crashes. It is the "Nut" behind the wheel. Driver training is virtually non-existant once one gets their initial Drivers Licence. We all know the rules of the road, well, some of us, and one passes all the tests, gets the Licence, then remembers what the Red Light is for, and immediately abandons the staying on the posted speed limit, amber lights, etc. etc. But, complains that when they get booked for speeding, that it is "revenue-raising".
Bruce. >:D
PS. And, I wish people would stop referring to Crashes as Accidents!!!!!!! Accidents do happen, but Crashes are caused by someone doing something wrong. After over 32 years as a Law Enforcement Officer, I have heard all the excuses.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on March 24, 2013, 07:27:09 PM
Louis, you have hit it right on the head.
I have always said that drivers are to blame for 99.9% of crashes. It is the "Nut" behind the wheel. Driver training is virtually non-existant once one gets their initial Drivers Licence. We all know the rules of the road, well, some of us, and one passes all the tests, gets the Licence, then remembers what the Red Light is for, and immediately abandons the staying on the posted speed limit, amber lights, etc. etc. But, complains that when they get booked for speeding, that it is "revenue-raising".
Bruce. >:D
PS. And, I wish people would stop referring to Crashes as Accidents!!!!!!! Accidents do happen, but Crashes are caused by someone doing something wrong. After over 32 years as a Law Enforcement Officer, I have heard all the excuses.
Well put, and worse of all, things are getting worse with all the texting and cell phone use of today. It is really easy to know when someone is texting or using their cell phone is ahead of you, as they are constantly adjusting their speed, and wavering all over their lane. You are so correct when you state how people know how to operate a car, but are clueless when it comes to operating a motor vehicle safely.
Quote from: Louis Smith on March 24, 2013, 10:53:33 AM
Oh yes this is the same "60 minutes" that did a very negative piece on how unsafe Audi's were, and it really hurt the company.
Those that leased Audis in 1986 were quite thankful they hadn't bought instead given what the 60 Minutes report did to Audi resales soon after!!
Quote from: Big Apple Caddy on March 24, 2013, 08:05:30 PM
Those that leased Audis in 1986 were quite thankful they hadn't bought instead given what the 60 Minutes report did to Audi resales soon after!!
Yes quite true, but the fact was, that the Audi's were unjustly given a bad name.
On 23 November 1986, 60 Minutes aired a segment greenlit by Hewitt, concerning the Audi 5000 automobile, a popular German luxury car. The story covered a supposed problem of "unintended acceleration" when the brake pedal was pushed, with emotional interviews with six people who sued Audi (unsuccessfully) after they crashed their cars, including one woman whose six-year-old boy had been killed. Footage was shown of an Audi 5000 with the accelerator moving down on its own, accelerating the car, after an expert witness employed by one of the plaintiffs modified it with a concealed device to cause it to do so.[20] Independent investigators concluded this was most likely due to driver incompetence, where the driver let their foot slip off the brake and onto the accelerator. Tests by Audi and independent journalists showed that even with the throttle wide open, the car would simply stall if the brakes were actually being used.[21]
The incident devastated Audi sales in the United States, which did not rebound for 15 years. The initial incidents which prompted the report were found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Transport Canada to have been attributable to operator error, where car owners had depressed the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal. CBS issued a partial retraction, without acknowledging the test results of involved government agencies.[22] Years later, Dateline NBC, a rival to 60 Minutes, was found guilty of similar tactics regarding the fuel tank integrity of General Motors pickup trucks.
Quote from: TJ Hopland on March 23, 2013, 10:42:39 AM...The list of 'proper equipment' is likely quite long to achieve that. I would bet it includes a weight distributing hitch which did / does not exist in the factory authorized catalog and they can't be fitted to all types of trailers. Went through that with a new car of mine a few years ago, they advertise its possible but don't offer the parts to do it. When I pressed the issue you should see what they came up with, it was about 200 pounds of aftermarket crap to add to the back of the car that would then void the warranty not to mention make the car drag its rear even before hooking up the trailer....
My boat only weighs 2,000lbs empty, maybe 600lbs more for the trailer and a full tank of fuel. a W/D hitch is uncalled for.
The equipment items not on my car are the heavy duty rear brakes (wider) and the 3.4:1 rear axle. These are easily added / replaced if i want to go over 5,000 lbs, but I don't plan to. A weight distributing hitch for loads b/w 5-7,000lbs would be needed, but again they can easily be installed here in FL, IF i ever planned to tow something that heavy which I don't.
The boss lady and i are still considering just selling the boat , to achieve that second happiest day in a boat owner's life, the first being the day the bought is bought.
BOAT:
Break
Out
Another
Thousand
Therefore, in the final analysis, the Fleetwood is fine for me and a lot more appealing than a beastie.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 25, 2013, 04:03:56 AM
My boat only weighs 2,000lbs empty, maybe 600lbs more for the trailer and a full tank of fuel. a W/D hitch is uncalled for.
The equipment items not on my car are the heavy duty rear brakes (wider) and the 3.4:1 rear axle. These are easily added / replaced if i want to go over 5,000 lbs, but I don't plan to. A weight distributing hitch for loads b/w 5-7,000lbs would be needed, but again they can easily be installed here in FL, IF i ever planned to tow something that heavy which I don't.
The boss lady and i are still considering just selling the boat , to achieve that second happiest day in a boat owner's life, the first being the day the bought is bought.
BOAT:
Break
Out
Another
Thousand
Therefore, in the final analysis, the Fleetwood is fine for me and a lot more appealing than a beastie.
Seems to me, that if one could afford a Cadillac, they should be able to keep their boat in a marina, and not have to tow it. Taking it one step further, I don't think any self respecting Cadillac owner would want to have a boat, so small that it could be towed ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The best of both worlds, all wrapped up in one nice package.
Ha Ha! That was funny ;D ;D ;D ;D
The only reason we got a boat was because it was summer and i had gotten rear-ended in my DVC. It took over 4 months to get a bumper and get the necessary work done to repair the car, so to keep busy, we got a boat. :P :o ???