For Sale 1969 dodge polara 2dr

[saforwardlook]

Where did you find this particular fact? Isn't describing Pontiac styling was hyperbolic and aggrandising equally valid? Aren't these facts better characterised as opinions?

Of course I meant opinion. For my taste Pontiac Styling went downhill after 1967 but the buyers market liked them later on as well.

You guys hit on the other issue with Godshall that ticks me off. He obviously believes that Pontiac design even after 1967 was the epitome of greatness, and because they sold well, I guess he believes his opinion is really just a fact. I thought they were just ugly and beaky and wierd. While the Pontiacs from 1961 thru 1965 such as the Grand Prix models were quite good in my eyes, after about 1967 they just lost it to me. So in one of his articles regarding the fuselage C bodies, he seems to consider the cars lacking in the styling department compared to GM and concludes that the car were poor sellers because of that "fact".

What made the GM cars such a Pontiac sell better than Chrysler products, rather than styling IMO, were some clear areas where they were superior to Chrysler products, namely better engine cooling systems with much more margin than Chrysler products for hot weather (the cross flow radiators had substantial width that is needed for keeping the engines cool in slow moving traffic conditions, the instrument panels were of superior quality (much less cheap plastic) and their electrical switches were not so chintzy and prone to failure early on. Then, too, their air conditioning systems had far more capacity for cooling the passenger compartment than Chrysler's did with much bigger evaporators and condensers and higher output blower motors (made possible too by the better cooling systems) and rotary a/c compressors that were smooth and quiet. Customers were affected substantially by these shortfalls in Chrysler products of the late 60s and early 70s, so GM maintained their consumer preference. GM's single a/c systems had more cooling capacity than even Chrysler's dual units from what I experienced. But I also believed that Chrysler had some superior power trains and suspension systems than GM so not everything was in GM's favor obviously.

 

[ayilar]

This discussion is extremely informative. Have you considered putting together a pamphlet or a even a small book on the fuselage cars — good and bad, proponents and detractors being cited? Self-publishing is an option. I’d buy it, for one. Am pretty sure that quite a few others would too.

 

[saforwardlook]

This discussion is extremely informative. Have you considered putting together a pamphlet or a even a small book on the fuselage cars — good and bad, proponents and detractors being cited? Self-publishing is an option. I’d buy it, for one. Am pretty sure that quite a few others would too.

I believe the best source for a well rounded understanding of the fuselage cars is to just continue to involve yourself in this website and take note of the various discussions that come up on the subjects that interest you. If you have specific questions about the 1969 - 1980 era of the corporation, I have seen a lot and have my own conclusions about the good and the bad things the corporation did. Just ask.

In my last job of 31 years, after my decade with Chrysler, I had to write and review tens of thousands of pages of staff reports over time, deal with the auto industry on a daily basis, manage engineering development contracts, run an engine dynamometer testing laboratory, assemble prototype test vehicles, get sued and deposed by the auto industry attorneys and others, manage a staff of some 40 people directly and so on. I left that all behind 6 years ago, and now I would like to focus on my much neglected assemblage of fusies and restore as many of them as I can before I depart on to better things. But thank you for the suggestion.

 

[commando1]

sued and deposed by the auto industry attorneys and others

That's a book right there. How about a quick snippet. An FCBO exclusive.

 

[ayilar]

I believe the best source for a well rounded understanding of the fuselage cars is to just continue to involve yourself in this website and take note of the various discussions that come up on the subjects that interest you. If you have specific questions about the 1969 - 1980 era of the corporation, I have seen a lot and have my own conclusions about the good and the bad things the corporation did. Just ask.

In my last job of 31 years, after my decade with Chrysler, I had to write and review tens of thousands of pages of staff reports over time, deal with the auto industry on a daily basis, manage engineering development contracts, run an engine dynamometer testing laboratory, assemble prototype test vehicles, get sued and deposed by the auto industry attorneys and others, manage a staff of some 40 people directly and so on. I left that all behind 6 years ago, and now I would like to focus on my much neglected assemblage of fusies and restore as many of them as I can before I depart on to better things. But thank you for the suggestion.

Fair enough. As one ages, it makes sense to focus on what really makes one tick: the marginal cost of spending time on stuff or activities that one is not really interested in goes up (or at least the perception thereof does).

Thank you, therefore, for the generous offer that I keep shooting more questions at you. I've been following the board for 6 years now: its existence and the willingness of members to answer questions (as well as some members' going above and beyond in directly helping -- they know who they are) was key to my buying a Polara this Spring and almost buying a 300 to keep it company this Summer.

With this in mind, though, I remain keenly aware though that online info / boards may disappear, in whole or in part (think deleted posts). What you suggest is therefore what I have been doing--saving as PDF the various discussions that are of interest to me.

Saving PDFs, though, is not the same thing as having a reference document. If a book is not to be written, then perhaps it might be worth having a Wiki type page to which information is posted by members and curated by the FCBO community.

 

[saforwardlook]

That's a book right there. How about a quick snippet. An FCBO exclusive.

I would be glad to share more with you guys if and when I get to meet you personally. Otherwise, I would like to keep to a minimum what I share online about my previous job for the sake of remaining pretty much anonymous. Thanks for understanding.

 

[cantflip]

I would be glad to share more with you guys if and when I get to meet you personally. Otherwise, I would like to keep to a minimum what I share online about my previous job for the sake of remaining pretty much anonymous. Thanks for understanding.

I suppose you know... this assures I will attempt to take you up on the offer during my next trip west...

 

[cantflip]

What does one need to do to be on your will Steve? I can wait 20-30 years if necessary

GET BACK IN LINE....

 

[Carmine]

You guys hit on the other issue with Godshall that ticks me off. He obviously believes that Pontiac design even after 1967 was the epitome of greatness, and because they sold well, I guess he believes his opinion is really just a fact. I thought they were just ugly and beaky and wierd. While the Pontiacs from 1961 thru 1965 such as the Grand Prix models were quite good in my eyes, after about 1967 they just lost it to me. So in one of his articles regarding the fuselage C bodies, he seems to consider the cars lacking in the styling department compared to GM and concludes that the car were poor sellers because of that "fact".

What made the GM cars such a Pontiac sell better than Chrysler products, rather than styling IMO, were some clear areas where they were superior to Chrysler products, namely better engine cooling systems with much more margin than Chrysler products for hot weather (the cross flow radiators had substantial width that is needed for keeping the engines cool in slow moving traffic conditions, the instrument panels were of superior quality (much less cheap plastic) and their electrical switches were not so chintzy and prone to failure early on. Then, too, their air conditioning systems had far more capacity for cooling the passenger compartment than Chrysler's did with much bigger evaporators and condensers and higher output blower motors (made possible too by the better cooling systems) and rotary a/c compressors that were smooth and quiet. Customers were affected substantially by these shortfalls in Chrysler products of the late 60s and early 70s, so GM maintained their consumer preference. GM's single a/c systems had more cooling capacity than even Chrysler's dual units from what I experienced. But I also believed that Chrysler had some superior power trains and suspension systems than GM so not everything was in GM's favor obviously.

I find that people become myopic and cynical about their professions. Some worse than others, and I'd say Godshall falls into the "worse than others" category.

In my time spent at Viper, coworkers might rage on and on regarding something fairly trivial and claim "they wouldn't do X at Ferrari!" to which I'd say (or think) "Really? You don't think there's some guy raging on about Z in Italy right now?"

Of course that's preferable to "who gives a sh*t!?" but grass-is-greener shouldn't have a place when you're just recounting history. I think this is Godshall's offense.