Two goofs and gas

["Mahoney, John" <jmahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#1 - I don't know who "JFP" might be.  Obviously I meant to type -JDP-.

#2 - I accidentally deleted Joe Fulton's e-mail, so I will answer here.

When promoting '71 Javelin and AMX (here's another "unknown" AMC history
tidbit: latter originally was hyphenated so that "Javelin-AMX" would have
been the 4-seater's official name*), ad agency copywriters rejected "bubble
fender" as sounding too "gentle" and "soft" for the market niche intended.

There were surprisingly lengthy discussions about such things (although they
weren't as exciting as the WRG minutes brainstorming on '67-'68 AMC!) but no
complete consensus, so that "hairy" theme (not popular in the AMC boardroom)
led to "...sculpted fenders knifing through plunging hood line" for
"in-your-face" copy and the "futurist" approach (which AMC liked enough to
influence development of both its '74 Matador coupe [MY '72 prototype was a
much more "classic" design], and '75 Pacer (plus both Matador- and  and
Pacer-derived lines) sold the concept by adding a few years to the old Mopar
copy and, instead of "Suddenly it's 1960,"

http://www.classiccar.com/articles/cars/images/57_belvedere_ad.gif

they came up with "The 1980s looking [no hyphen again] Javelin" phrase.  In
that version of the future, bubble fenders would "rise and fall in an
aerodynamic whoosh" (the lack of quotes implied that the copy was as
futuristic as the car?)  They knew that, like Gremlin, Javelin had
"love-it-or-hate-it" styling; they also knew that, like the last independent
to go under,

http://www.rareads.com/scans/5462.jpg

http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Studebaker/1964/pages/64StudeBrochure1a_jpg.h
tm

they had to offer more of what the Big-Three didn't already sell.  For less.

*The hyphenated name did appear in one '71 ad, an ad that also should be
known for its other AMC words.  Would "A rear spoiler specially designed by
Donohue" have been true if it were trying to sell a 1970 Camaro?  (Or would
it have been a bit too "slick" in use of "downforce" --- even then?)

I'd like to quote the AMC documents wherein "bubble fender" was found.  I
won't have the slightest opportunity to even locate them again: today,
tomorrow (or ever, the way life unfolds.)  I spent more time on AMC stuff
recently (and discarded a few more pounds...): I'll be dead before it's all
"out there" for the so-called "hobby" to enjoy.  Depressing, I guess.     

Oh, well.

Civic GX is a CNG-fueled 11.9-second AT-PZEV car (Honda will lease you a
home-fueling station [named "Phil"] for $34-79/mo., depending on location or
incentives.)  If it's not the cleanest non-hybrid car available, it's close;
and if the Ed Begley/Woody Harrelson/Brad Pitt/Dana Delany/Darryl
Hanna/Cameron Diaz (plus Willie Nelson?!) Prius people picked it, it'd be
almost as well-known.  (If it looked as unusual in 2005 as the AMC Pacer did
in 1975, it'd be Hollywood's new toy...) 

http://www.myphill.com/

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/exterior_gallery.asp?ModelName=Civic+GX

AFA any "road taxes" Frank mentioned, the taxman can get his from every home
install with separate Phil meters.  (Imagine how much more "wealth transfer"
our gummymint could effect if it -enforced- already-existing income tax
code: it's as successful at that as at hand-held cell phone usage.)  Idiots
will be idiots whether they're making or breaking laws.  

As today's V-8 mileage (or "milage" if you will) discussion touched on GM's,
it brought to mind five cars I've owned.  The lightest was an AMC (about two
tons) with 304 and BW, the heaviest: two Buicks (~4800 lbs) with 350s: one
LO5, one LT1.  Also with LT1 was a police-package Chevy: the Impala weighed
in at 4100-something.  Having eaten nearly as much wurst as the Roadmonsters
was the worst, the M-B with 4700 lbs for its 322-hp 5.0L to haul.  (Its
front suspension [and tires] weren't happy.)  Each enclosed a similar EPA
interior total: ~115 passenger cubic feet. 

The best the Ambassador ever did was one unexplainable 26-mpg highway
journey; its city mileage often dipped toward 10-12-mpg.  The SEL was not
much more fuel-efficient, it was just more predictable: 14-19-mpg under any
condition.  Those GM cars; however, spoke to a "more is less" theory: worse
city mpg on 180-hp wagon (with 3.27 rear) than the 260-hp (3.08) sedan and
wagon; worse highway, too.  SFI vs. PFI and/or tranny electronics might've
been responsible; torque curve (300-lb @ 2400 rpm vs. 335-lb @ I can't
remember) may also have played a role.  Apologies for comparing cars so many
years (1971 vs. 1996) and many miles apart: (the Mercedes' MRSP was almost
$90,000 higher than the Ambassador's!); it's just too interesting --- and
odd --- a match-up not to be told.

Of those cars, the lowest-priced two are the most appealing (the M-B;
however, had the best ride and the most comfortable [driver's] seat): the
Impala --- if it could be kept swirl-free --- will always have a nice
"sports sedan" look to it (its ergonomics will always be awful); the AMC
wagon will probably have an even nicer "every detail done as well as was
possible" look --- for its day, for today, and forever.

In 2045, the Buick will probably look as attractive as any early 1950s woody
looks in 2005**, and "dollar grins" will spill big bills on its grille
(whoever could've predicted $200,000 station wagons?) also; what seems most
interesting is that the W 140, once widely deemed "the best sedan in the
world," will not be widely collected, but instead, could be less appealing
to old-car lovers when it's 50 years old than a new can of WD-40*** --- for
use on their old cars by AMC and Chevrolet.

**If you like this car, 

http://www.pacerfarm.org/p1tf.jpg

you'll like this car too...

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2001/December/American/

***If you like a 50th birthday,

http://www.wd40.com/WhatsNew/index.html                

you'll like a $10,000 present.


Enter and win.  Good luck.