Montalban, Former Chrysler Pitchman, Dies At 88

Akira 'Zathras' Norimaki wrote:
> Terry del Fuego wrote:
>> Two door cars are the direct, personal work of the devil.
>
> LOL.
>
> What about a two seats roadster with a six speed, manual, gearbox? :P
>
> My car:
> http://picasaweb.google.it/Diotonant...29014598323890
>


Damn. I was hoping to see a Viper.

Steve > writes:

> No, I'm definitely thinking Mk VIII. It was the first to get the
> 32-valve version of the Modular v8, which at the time looked as good
> or better than the Cadillac Northstar (at least on paper). It stayed
> in production through 1998, getting one re-style along the way. They
> kinda let it be a "niche" vehicle and didn't shut it down when it
> failed to sell in large numbers. That's one thing that I liked about
> it.

Of course Mk's were always intended as niche vehicles...

> Here is a picture showing both style iterations:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_VIII.JPG
>
> Now that we're in danger of going completely off-topic for the
> Chrysler group, I'll add that one reason the 300M sold so well, IMO,
> is that it was a more affordable version of the same idea as the Mk
> VIII. Too bad it was a front-drive. One of the things I distinctly
> remember about the MkVIII is that it beat the Northstar-powered
> Seville STS/Eldorado in all the performance tests in 1993, despite
> having about 15 horsepower less. The benefit of rear-drive and more
> balanced handling. Why do I remember? Because in 1993 I was
> car-shopping, and the Seville STS and MK VIII were two cars I looked
> at and test-drove, but wifey ruled out. The Seville for expense (plus
> I had already pretty much eliminated it just for being a GM product),
> and the MkVIII because it wasn't a family car and for expense. Given
> that our final pick (the 93 Vision) cost a lot less and did give
> almost 260k miles of service, I think we did OK ;-)

Never knew you'd even consider a Brand F or G

On 2009-01-20, Steve > wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>>>> Footage from when?
>>>> 11-sept-2001. you know, of all the tapes they took and all the security
>>>> cameras of the HQ of the world's most powerful military only a few
>>>> frames have been released.
>>>>
>>>> national security you know!
>>> Oddly enough, in real life (as opposed to movies) cameras are set
>>> looking at things where threats are expected, not randomly off onto
>>> the grounds.
>>
>> And yet the footage is secret under national security. If it shows
>> nothing why is it secret?
>
> I can think of a whole bunch of things that it *might* show, all
> completely unrelated to events of 9/11/01, that still shouldn't be released.
>
> Come on, THINK! Just because you get kicked in the ass there's no reason
> to drop your pants voluntarily.

What might security footage from nearby businesses show that couldn't be
seen by visiting said businesses?

Steve wrote:
> Damn. I was hoping to see a Viper.

Maybe next time Steve. Maybe when gas goes cheaper.

--
Yatta!,

Aeryn: Fun? How am I to have fun?
John: Well I don't know how you're supposed to have fun - but this is
fun! This is "Top Gun"! This is the need for speed - admit it you like
this stuff.
Aeryn: I have no need for speed.

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Steve > writes:
>
>> No, I'm definitely thinking Mk VIII. It was the first to get the
>> 32-valve version of the Modular v8, which at the time looked as good
>> or better than the Cadillac Northstar (at least on paper). It stayed
>> in production through 1998, getting one re-style along the way. They
>> kinda let it be a "niche" vehicle and didn't shut it down when it
>> failed to sell in large numbers. That's one thing that I liked about
>> it.
>
> Of course Mk's were always intended as niche vehicles...
>
>> Here is a picture showing both style iterations:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_VIII.JPG
>>
>> Now that we're in danger of going completely off-topic for the
>> Chrysler group, I'll add that one reason the 300M sold so well, IMO,
>> is that it was a more affordable version of the same idea as the Mk
>> VIII. Too bad it was a front-drive. One of the things I distinctly
>> remember about the MkVIII is that it beat the Northstar-powered
>> Seville STS/Eldorado in all the performance tests in 1993, despite
>> having about 15 horsepower less. The benefit of rear-drive and more
>> balanced handling. Why do I remember? Because in 1993 I was
>> car-shopping, and the Seville STS and MK VIII were two cars I looked
>> at and test-drove, but wifey ruled out. The Seville for expense (plus
>> I had already pretty much eliminated it just for being a GM product),
>> and the MkVIII because it wasn't a family car and for expense. Given
>> that our final pick (the 93 Vision) cost a lot less and did give
>> almost 260k miles of service, I think we did OK ;-)
>
> Never knew you'd even consider a Brand F or G

Brands T and maybe H fall in the "never" category. I've owned Fs and
married into a ownership of a G before.... ;-/

Brent wrote:
> On 2009-01-20, Steve > wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Footage from when?
>>>>> 11-sept-2001. you know, of all the tapes they took and all the security
>>>>> cameras of the HQ of the world's most powerful military only a few
>>>>> frames have been released.
>>>>>
>>>>> national security you know!
>>>> Oddly enough, in real life (as opposed to movies) cameras are set
>>>> looking at things where threats are expected, not randomly off onto
>>>> the grounds.
>>> And yet the footage is secret under national security. If it shows
>>> nothing why is it secret?
>> I can think of a whole bunch of things that it *might* show, all
>> completely unrelated to events of 9/11/01, that still shouldn't be released.
>>
>> Come on, THINK! Just because you get kicked in the ass there's no reason
>> to drop your pants voluntarily.
>
> What might security footage from nearby businesses show that couldn't be
> seen by visiting said businesses?

Probably nothing. But then maybe something. And besides, why make it
easier for the bad guys than having to go visit that spot?

"Terry del Fuego" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:57:06 GMT, "Count Floyd"
> > wrote:
>
>>Long hood/short deck "luxury coupes" were the fad in the '70's.
>
> Incredibly stupid designs--I don't care what they looked like, but it
> drove me nuts that the cars were huge yet tended to have almost no
> room in the back seats. My first couple cars were ancient junkers,
> but they were considerably more comfortable than those 1970s boats for
> anyone actually riding in them.

The actual design of long front short cargo/passenger space goes way back.
Check out Duesenbers, Auburns and Cords.

SWIGGY

swiggy wrote:
> "Terry del Fuego" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:57:06 GMT, "Count Floyd"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Long hood/short deck "luxury coupes" were the fad in the '70's.
>> Incredibly stupid designs--I don't care what they looked like, but it
>> drove me nuts that the cars were huge yet tended to have almost no
>> room in the back seats. My first couple cars were ancient junkers,
>> but they were considerably more comfortable than those 1970s boats for
>> anyone actually riding in them.
>
> The actual design of long front short cargo/passenger space goes way back.
> Check out Duesenbers, Auburns and Cords.
>
> SWIGGY
>

Aside from the fact that they are aesthetically appealing, there was a
good reason for this - those vehicles tended to have large inline type
engines. Those take up a lot of real estate forward of the firewall.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel