GM: Kill Pontiac

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:35:11 -0600, "WindsorFox[SS]"
> > wrote:
>
> >noname wrote:
> >> What the heck is an "H1"
> >>
> > The first *fake* Hummer. As opposed to the currently available H2,
> >the second *fake* Hummer.
>
> The posturing, over-monied suburban sissies needed their comfort.

Don't forget the forthcoming S10/Colorado-based H3....

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

wrote:
>
> The is technically correct, but the MN12 was it self a variation
> of the Fox
>
> mike hunt

They share nothing of consequence. You seem to think if they
share a bolt, then they are variations. I suppose using your
twisted logic, the new Mustang is a variation of the
Corvette chassis (which is just about as true as some of
your ridiculous claims).

Ed

The new caddy shares the Corvette chassis not the Mustang. The
Volvo 90, Freestyle and 500 have little in common but they too
share the same basic chassis as well

You are free to believe what ever you wish. In sure they must
have some fasteners in common. I know my 2005 Mustang GT
convertible has the same door handles as my 2005 Lincoln LS. But
of course that has nothing to do with the basic chassis they
share LOL


mike hunt



"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> > The is technically correct, but the MN12 was it self a variation
> > of the Fox
> >
> > mike hunt
>
> They share nothing of consequence. You seem to think if they
> share a bolt, then they are variations. I suppose using your
> twisted logic, the new Mustang is a variation of the
> Corvette chassis (which is just about as true as some of
> your ridiculous claims).
>
> Ed

wrote:

> You are free to believe what ever you wish. In sure they must
> have some fasteners in common. I know my 2005 Mustang GT
> convertible has the same door handles as my 2005 Lincoln LS. But
> of course that has nothing to do with the basic chassis they
> share LOL

Sigh as you like it. But when they don't even share basic
suspension designs, I still say it is wrong to claim they
are variations of the same chassis. Just becasue at some
point they thought about using the LS chassis, doesn't mean
the Mustang chassis is a variations of that design. Over the
past 4 years stories have claimed all sort of things. In the
end almost nothing is shared (chassis wise). If you don't
even share suspension locating points, you aren't sharing
much. Sharing the door handles is probably more significant
than the chassis parts they do actually share. If you could
point to one shared suspension compoennt (not including
fasteners) I might feel differently.

Ed

I have tried to explain to you on several occasions what a basic
chassis is and its hard points. I told you why manufactures try
to make as many vehicles off that chassis as possible. I told
you how a vehicles based on that chassis can be so different,
when used to build another vehicles. If you want to continue to
believe what you wish that is your prerogative. I'll not try
again.



mike hunt



"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> > You are free to believe what ever you wish. In sure they must
> > have some fasteners in common. I know my 2005 Mustang GT
> > convertible has the same door handles as my 2005 Lincoln LS. But
> > of course that has nothing to do with the basic chassis they
> > share LOL
>
> Sigh as you like it. But when they don't even share basic
> suspension designs, I still say it is wrong to claim they
> are variations of the same chassis. Just becasue at some
> point they thought about using the LS chassis, doesn't mean
> the Mustang chassis is a variations of that design. Over the
> past 4 years stories have claimed all sort of things. In the
> end almost nothing is shared (chassis wise). If you don't
> even share suspension locating points, you aren't sharing
> much. Sharing the door handles is probably more significant
> than the chassis parts they do actually share. If you could
> point to one shared suspension compoennt (not including
> fasteners) I might feel differently.
>
> Ed

> Yours follows a similar theme as:
>
> http://autoextremist.com/index.shtml
>

.... and autoextremist's writing is MUCH better ...

wrote:
>
> I have tried to explain to you on several occasions what a basic
> chassis is and its hard points. I told you why manufactures try
> to make as many vehicles off that chassis as possible. I told
> you how a vehicles based on that chassis can be so different,
> when used to build another vehicles. If you want to continue to
> believe what you wish that is your prerogative. I'll not try
> again.


Of course the fact that you are wrong never entered your
mind. You keep repeating old information. I have no idea
why.

Ed