GM's screwups don't stop with what has been said in this thread so far. I've been a diehard GM guy for 45 years and have wanted a factory hot rod pickup for a long time. I liked the 454SS but the gas mileage as a daily driver was a major deterent and I really didn't have the money when they were being made. When the Ford Lightning was introduced in 1999, I had to have one. It had all the equipment I was looking for. I've never regretted the purchase. It is by far the most comfortable, hard running, best handling new vehicle I've owned. Chevy and Dodge waited until now to respond. Too late for me, the Lightning is paid off and running great.

And what's up with GM bucket seats? I had a '93 Bonneville that ran great and required virtually no maintenance for 150k miles. Unfortunately, I couldn't drive it or ride in it without using pillows for lower back support. It's the same way with my daughter's '96 Z28 Camero. Both cars give tremendous (and unnecessary) shoulder support while neglecting lumbar support completely.

Now that I'm getting older you can tell my interest in comfort has increased to be almost equal to my need for performance.

OK, before you rag on me about the comfort level of the seats in a '77 Vette, let me say this: I altered the seats a little when the interior was redone, and, even so, there are certain things a man can put up with.

 

:conehead No matter how careful you are to make a point - Some people just don't get it..... :banghead:

 

GM seats have always been uncomfortable.. We had company GM company cars and a couple of guys had serious back problems from long trips. I had to get out about every hour to avoid it. Ironically I have rideen in my C3 on long stretches and the seats are fine. My last Blazer and Grand Prix...had to get out regularly. You think by now they could do seats right. Peoples backs haven't changed that much in 100 years..........With my Ford seats I have never had an issue.

 

well, i read the same article. i'm not sure what to make of it. it says that some "insiders" say there won't be red but here on the very cover page of this forum is a pretty reddish spy shot of the up coming c-6. yeah, it's not torch red, it's not coke red, it's not arrest me red, it's not $2 hooker lipstick red, but it is red.
i have no idea how much the new c-6 will cost and, right now, it doesn't matter to me anyway since i don't make enough to afford one. i think the c-5 was over priced anyway and it only looks like the c-6 will continue that trend. in a way, i don't begrudge GM for marking them up, they're in business to make a buck. i also don't buy that it costs that much to develop and produce the car, not with a life span of 7-10 years per generation and $50k per unit and 35k units a year. if people with alot more money than me are willing to pay that, GM should be selling to them. i'm just disappointed that $60k is still alot of money to me. working on fixing that most egregious error!
i have mixed feelings about all this retro styling that's going on. i've never been a fan of the 'oldies' anyway. you couldn't give me a car made before 1950. the only thing i really like from the '50s is the vette and don't start liking the general automotive styling until the '60s. when i consider this retro look every one has been coming out with i think about the P/T neon (oops! excuse me, P/T cruiser). it was hot as hell when it first came out and now look at it, they're dime a dozen and the styling is getting stale. ford and chevy are way behind the times on that trend. i think the enthusiasm for it is tapering off. most of the people into the retro styling already own a P/T. sure, there are still plenty of people in line to buy an SSR but thunderbird plenty, not P/T plenty.
i would be interested in seeing a retro-styled camaro though, but only if it's really bold like the show mustang, not the one ford is supposedly putting into production.


[Modified by clutchdust, 8:23 AM 12/12/2003]