Chrysler and Fiat agree to merge

bobman1235

I love how folks judge a car company from its reliability from the 70's. Kind of a lot has changed since then. Hell, there are some car companies that 15 years ago were a joke as far as quality and are now some of the elite sellers in teh country (Audi anyone?). So 30+ years ago? I'd say they can have another chance.

Face

bobman1235 wrote: »

I love how folks judge a car company from its reliability from the 70's. Kind of a lot has changed since then. Hell, there are some car companies that 15 years ago were a joke as far as quality and are now some of the elite sellers in teh country (Audi anyone?). So 30+ years ago? I'd say they can have another chance.

Hyundai is a much better example.

ND13

bobman1235 wrote: »

I love how folks judge a car company from its reliability from the 70's. Kind of a lot has changed since then. Hell, there are some car companies that 15 years ago were a joke as far as quality and are now some of the elite sellers in teh country (Audi anyone?). So 30+ years ago? I'd say they can have another chance.

In 1996 Kia was using Mazda drivetrains from the 80's. Ford has overtaken Honda and Toyota in reliability. Hondas were rustbuckets back in their early days. Hyundai makes solid cars. I'm more than willing to give Fiat another chance. Jaguar got one, but it took Ford to get them reliable.

ViperZ

IMHO, there are only two or three cars in the world that look worse than PT Cruiser. Suspensions stinks (think old Neon). Plus add all original Neon problems, and the car is a piece of junk.

Chrysler and GM haven't improved their cars for years. I am not including Ford in the list, since their new line-up is "all-improved" Mazdas and Volvos.
Engines, suspensions, transmissions, etc. - nothing really matches current demand.

What kind of a moron put together a new 300? You take a perfectly cool Mercedes E-series base and stick a friggin' truck engine on that base. Boohoo, now you have car from which you can't see crap. This entire new Chrysler's line-up looks like it was drawn by a 5-year-old (300, Charger, Challenger, etc.). Super-small windows, from which you can't see anything. Giant inefficient engines, which are not needed in the current economy. Very poor reliability (and yes, I am driving a 300m Special edition, and this is my last American car).

I work across the road from Canada's largest Chrysler plant in Brampton, ON. I know how many people work there, and I also know that that plant was shut down for the last couple of months. The only parking lot that is full is the one with the new 300s and Chargers. Why? See the reasons above.

I am really sorry for the workers who might get laid off from that plant, but it's not just Chrysler who is **** them - it's their own union - CAW. They are making 1.5x what Toyota workers make in the same city. Sure, their salary is higher, but the fact of the matter is that Chrysler screwed themselves up with this Union deal.

Just a vent!

And if you compare these current Chrysler cars to Daimler (i.e. Mercedes-Benz) line-up... well, there is no comparison, period. Elegant, beautiful cars with amazing engines and crazy reviews... In my opinion, last great Chrysler generation was '98 line-up of Intrepid/Concorde/300m/LHS. Their "first fully computer designed" cars, which looked good and actually drove fine.

P.S. I really hope that the "vibrant mind" who designed new 300 is fired by now. I know that the same guy designed Ram and Charger. That's just plain ridiculous - taking truck front dash and sticking it on every other Dodge. Fugly!

ohskigod wrote: »

daimler didnt "give up" on Chrysler. they sucked it dry like a succulbus and dumped off the carcass when they were done. Pre merger, Chrysler was in fantastic shape. i should know, I worked for them.
vibrant minds coming up with cool stuff. PT Cruiser, Viper, Cab Forward anyone? in 1994-97 they had cars that look like cars of today. automakers still shamelessly crib that design to this day.

During the merger, they were raping Chrysler for all there talent and tranfering them to the Daimler side. I could have moved to Germany if i wanted. i didnt want to no need for the land of bad Techno and scheister
eh, i'm done with my rant

ViperZ

ND13 wrote: »

In 1996 Kia was using Mazda drivetrains from the 80's. Ford has overtaken Honda and Toyota in reliability. Hondas were rustbuckets back in their early days. Hyundai makes solid cars. I'm more than willing to give Fiat another chance. Jaguar got one, but it took Ford to get them reliable.

Didn't read the entire thread, but the reason why Ford "overtook" Japanese makers in reliability is that they are using Mazda and Volvo bases/drivetrains in their entire new line up (well, except for never re-designed 70s stuff in Five Hundred).

ND13

Style is all subjective. I personally like the 300, Challenger and New Ram(which has been heralded for being the first REAL truck with a rear coil suspension plus many other attributes that have it at the head of the pack). I don't really care for the Charger all that much. I see you've read into the propaganda that the PT Cruiser was based off the Neon. It only shared a few components with it. It shared components with the Status/Sebring, too. The Watts rear suspension does a great job. Sorry you don't care for retro styling, but not everyone cares for the cookie-cutter designs that most are providing. I have no loyalty to any one brand. Most manufacturers have their game on these days. As far as the Japanese go, Subaru and Nissan are the one's I prefer.

Jstas

ViperZ, are you from like backwards land or something?

The 1st generation and even 2nd generation of Neons were tauted by many reviewers as have one of the best suspension setups on the market for their class. Even today, Neon ACR's are still highly competitive in auto club racing.

As far as the 300 goes, you complain that an E-series has been sullied by a HEMI. But the E-series has the worst reliability rating of any current Mercedes Benz product. You also complain about a "truck engine" in the 300 but the E-series has an option V8 also, actually, 2 of them, and they are both heavier and larger than the Chrysler V8's available from ANY year that the 300 was offered since it was redesigned in 2005.

And as far as Ford using Mazda and Volvo drivelines, yeah, you're wrong. If anything Mazda is using Ford platforms and drivelines because the current crop of I4's and V6's are coming out of Ford of Europe with only one or two small engines coming from Mazda and being used in sub-compacts. Volvo has their own engines including a turbocharged 5 cylinder in the C30 but basically any V6 they have is a Ford Duratec/Ecoboost variant. Volvo uses their own automatic and sources manuals from Getrag, just like Ford does. Unless of course you are talking about trucks then Ford is using all Ford stuff or out sourcing to a heavy equipment manufacturer like Navistar, Cummins, Allison and so on. The V8's in Ford's line-up are shared with no other manufacturer unless you count the V8 available in the LS which was a shared design with Jaguar. But it's no longer made. In fact, I don't think Mazda has any engine in a Ford sold in this country right now. All Ford with Mazda engines are sold in Asian markets except for the very small sub-compacts in Europe. Even the diesels are either Ford or Ford of Europe units and even then, we don't get a Ford of Europe diesel over here unless Ford makes good on the promises of a diesel for the F-150.

I think you should go do some research before you "vent". Just a simple search on Wikipedia could help keep from making a spectacle of yourself.

sucks2beme

Let's hope they get their **** together. I'd like to stop making
payments to bail out companies. 5 years of car payments,
and now I'll be paying for car COMPANIES for the next 30 years.
I'll be dead by then, but I'm sure the rest of you won't mind
picking up the slack. Of course, Toyota took a beating, too.
That will teach them to get into building full size trucks during
a gas crunch.

ohskigod

ViperZ wrote: »

IMHO, there are only two or three cars in the world that look worse than PT Cruiser. Suspensions stinks (think old Neon). Plus add all original Neon problems, and the car is a piece of junk.

you mean those ugly PT cruisers that were selling for near double retail when they first came out.? Dude, your opinion was the minority. people were paying over 30g's for those things when they came out. believe me, think of a young credit buyer looking at a deal on his computer for 210% of tissue going WTF?!?! That was me when that car first came out.

it was so out of the box people literally freaked out.

ViperZ wrote: »

And if you compare these current Chrysler cars to Daimler (i.e. Mercedes-Benz) line-up... well, there is no comparison, period. Elegant, beautiful cars with amazing engines and crazy reviews... In my opinion, last great Chrysler generation was '98 line-up of Intrepid/Concorde/300m/LHS. Their "first fully computer designed" cars, which looked good and actually drove fine.

those were the cab forward designs of which I spoke. those cars were quite badass. compared to other cars in their class those things were roomy as all hell. Like I said, you see hints of those designs and shapes even today. disguised well, but theyre there. and that 3.5l in any of those cars made them go like stink. they actually dropped that engine in the Prowler, a 55000 car for god's sake..LOL

ViperZ wrote: »

P.S. I really hope that the "vibrant mind" who designed new 300 is fired by now. I know that the same guy designed Ram and Charger. That's just plain ridiculous - taking truck front dash and sticking it on every other Dodge. Fugly!

yeah, that was the beginning of the end, i'll give ya that. actualy, the nail was really the most recent Sebring/Stratus. WTF?!?! those cars make the 300 and Charger look cuting edge. ugly as all hell, and crappy performance and handling to boot. a perfect sign of a Company drained of design brainpower. it's sad, there will always be a little Chrysler blood in my veins from my 5 years there. I learned a hell of a lot at that time.

ND13

Lou, I actually sold a few Cruisers for $5k over sticker and we had the best deals within several hours. I sold one to another dealer in Chitown for $4k over sticker...he had it sold for $10k over. It's not like we made a mint, they only had about $800-1200 mark-up anyway. Supply and demand. Other than those few, most of ours were sold Greenslip/EP. Three Chrysler plants within an hour and a half with two of those within 30 min.

We had people pre-order their Cruisers that had to wait 9-10 months before they came in, no ****.

TECHNOKID

ND13 wrote: »

Thank you John.

I just don't have the patience for anyone that wants to see an employer of 10's if not 100's of thousands(when you include dealers) of people go under. I live where the layoffs and plant closures have, most likely, irreversibly damaged people's lives. And for our Canadian brotheres, if Chrysler goes belly up, it'll affect your nation dramatically, too. I really could care less what happens south of the border at this time. Every model assembled down there is being assembled here, too or can be if the plant that was is shut down.

Definitely agreed! Ontario would more likely be greatly affected (in Quebec there isn't much left anyway).

ViperZ

Jstas wrote: »

ViperZ, are you from like backwards land or something?

The 1st generation and even 2nd generation of Neons were tauted by many reviewers as have one of the best suspension setups on the market for their class. Even today, Neon ACR's are still highly competitive in auto club racing.

Sorry to say that, but I used to own a 2001 Neon LE, which I got as a demo with 11K km on it. The car lasted until I sold it in 2006 with 104K km (that's like 60K miles). It was garbage. I sold it for a bag of peanuts. The transmission was going, the head gasket was leaking, the A/C was dead, rubber inserts on the steering arms were gone... and that's just for the start... as for suspension... well, the car definitely didn't feel the road, lol.

Went thru, 1991 Caravan (junk), 1998 2.7 Intrepid (so-so), 2000 Intrepid R/T (ok, this one is fine, but it's literally falling apart now with 220K km on it) and 2002 300m Special.

Talking about Chrysler suspensions... how about the ENTIRE NEW REAR SUSPENSION for the Special in two days? The thing keeps falling apart.

danger boy

bobman1235 wrote: »

I love how folks judge a car company from its reliability from the 70's. Kind of a lot has changed since then. Hell, there are some car companies that 15 years ago were a joke as far as quality and are now some of the elite sellers in teh country (Audi anyone?). So 30+ years ago? I'd say they can have another chance.

Yeah I agree.. that's why I mean bring back the Yugo. Cheap to build, unreliable and just buy another one when it breaks down. Couldn't be any worse than some other car makers out there.

problem is the US market wants big **** gas guzzling cars.. while the rest of the world wants smaller more energy efficient ones. We American's need to wise up.. we're using more fuel that any one else. and we complain about it more than anyone else. and it's our own damn fault.

US drivers need to rethink their mode of transportation. A family of four does not need a tank that can carry 9 people. C'mon.. we're spoiled little children when it comes to our cars. Other countries see their cars as a way to get from point A to point B. we see it as I better look damn good in this boat of a car because I'm paying 40K for it.

end of rant.. night.

mhardy6647

ohskigod wrote: »

dropped that engine in the Prowler, a 55000 car for god's sake..LOL

a 55000 (pound) car... bet the acceleration was... leisurely.

ND13

mhardy6647 wrote: »

a 55000 (pound) car... bet the acceleration was... leisurely.

They listed for about $42k(loaded) in '99, but MANY of the first off the line were sold for upwards of $120k.

At that time, I worked for the second largest Chrysler dealer in Indiana and our 1st Prowler was 75th off the line and we were offered $110k from a dealer in Ohio that was representing on of the Labonte boys. My dumbass GM didn't sell it because it arrived when the owner was on vacation. We kept it on the showroom for another week before the idiot owner got back and he sold it to one of his good buddies for $75k.

Even though the car was equipped with a 253hp V6 with autostick, it still had exceptional acceration for the time(0-60 in under 7sec) due to almost zero loss of traction from the ginormous 20" rear tires. The car weighed in at only +/-2800lbs. The car was never marketed as a high performance car. It was a boulevard statement piece, plain and simple. I sold several and drove quite a few for more than a test drive. They were quite fun little cars. Though at 6'3", I did feel like Magnum PI driving that Ferrari around with the Targa top removed, at all times, due to my head being slightly above the windshield.:D

tonyb

danger boy wrote: »

Yeah I agree.. that's why I mean bring back the Yugo. Cheap to build, unreliable and just buy another one when it breaks down. Couldn't be any worse than some other car makers out there.

problem is the US market wants big **** gas guzzling cars.. while the rest of the world wants smaller more energy efficient ones. We American's need to wise up.. we're using more fuel that any one else. and we complain about it more than anyone else. and it's our own damn fault.

US drivers need to rethink their mode of transportation. A family of four does not need a tank that can carry 9 people. C'mon.. we're spoiled little children when it comes to our cars. Other countries see their cars as a way to get from point A to point B. we see it as I better look damn good in this boat of a car because I'm paying 40K for it.

end of rant.. night.

Nice rant,but is this not how the free market works? Sell what people want? Instead of dictating what I should want?By your logic,we should stoop down to the expectations of other countries? C'mon,man,we are the most prosperous country in the world.Why can't people spend their money they way they see fit? What would happen if they suddenly deemed HD TV was taboo and made you buy CRT tubed sets again no bigger than 36 in.You have the money for a plasma,but the rest of the world doesn't,so you should come down to their level? Other countries see it as getting from point a to b,maybe because they don't have the money or spend the amount of time in that car as we do.So lets artificially raise gas prices,tax it to oblivion, to force you to buy what someone else deems you should buy?Yeah,ok,sounds like freedom to me.:rolleyes:

shack

Some may think it is about freedom of choice when it come to big gas guzzling vehicles...but it is more about National Security and long term sustainabiltiy IMO. While it was not necessarily the root cause of the recession we are in today, $4-$5 gas was certainly a catalyst. I remember thinking right after Hurricane Katrina, when the gas supply lines to the southeast were shut off and gas jumped $1.50-$2.00 overnight...how were people going to afford gas? I got my answer when filling up a pump and for the first time costing nearly $50...across from me was a guy in a old beat-up PU truck, who you could tell barely was getting by, put almost $100 of gas in that truck....an paid for it with a credit card. I knew then that a consumer credit problem was no longer a matter of IF...but WHEN.

As a nation we cannot be held hostage by the oil producing nations. Do we really want the likes of Hugo Chavez, the Saudis, etc... dictating the price of a currently irreplaceable commodity? We have to get away from the HUGE demand for oil. I don't care if it is hydrogen, electric, nuclear, solar, wind etc...OR CONSERVATION. China alone is diverting a great deal of the available supplies to fuel their economic growth. The only reason gas is cheap now is low demand. As a nation we can do the same thing with fuel conservation with vehicle fuel consumption. If an electric vehicle were a viable choice right now I would be all over it.

Freedom does not mean individuals have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the impact it has on the rest of society. Individuals have certain rights to choose things within the bounds of society. The freedoms have more to do with ideology, beliefs and personal lifestyle...NOT the right to waste, damage, destroy as one sees fit to the detriment of society as a whole. The constitution does not give anyone the right to drive a big gas guzzling vehicles just because they want to (or can afford it)...if that means the society is at risk because of those actions. There have always been limits to choice. The framers of the constitution did not set up a system of people doing whatever they wanted...just the right to believe whatever they wanted.

Oh...and BTW...we are NOT the most prosperous nation in the world. Depending on what source you want to use, we are between 5th and 22nd. And in fact we are no longer even the largest economy. As an individual nation, yes, but the largest economic "system" is the EU which passed the US in late 2007/ early 2008 due primarily to the sagging US dollar.

Jstas

ViperZ wrote: »

Sorry to say that, but I used to own a 2001 Neon LE, which I got as a demo with 11K km on it. The car lasted until I sold it in 2006 with 104K km (that's like 60K miles). It was garbage. I sold it for a bag of peanuts. The transmission was going, the head gasket was leaking, the A/C was dead, rubber inserts on the steering arms were gone... and that's just for the start... as for suspension... well, the car definitely didn't feel the road, lol.

Went thru, 1991 Caravan (junk), 1998 2.7 Intrepid (so-so), 2000 Intrepid R/T (ok, this one is fine, but it's literally falling apart now with 220K km on it) and 2002 300m Special.

Talking about Chrysler suspensions... how about the ENTIRE NEW REAR SUSPENSION for the Special in two days? The thing keeps falling apart.

:rolleyes:

It's ok, I understand, you're Canadian. You can't help it. You were born that way. I'll pray for you.

ND13

Jstas wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's ok, I understand, you're Canadian. You can't help it. You were born that way. I'll pray for you.

And for some strange reason he kept buying more and more Chrysler products???

I've owned literally dozens of automobiles over the last 27 years and I've NEVER had issues like some of these folks are saying they've had...no matter who the manufacturer was. I'll say that the only manufacturer I've ever had problems at all with was with GM. But the issues were far from extreme..mainly front brakes and paint on flat surfaces. Some of those vehicles were driven to over 200k miles and even one with over 300k miles, without any major overhauls or rebuilds. Of course I maintain my vehicles and use synthetic lubricants(at least since their inception).

A few examples:
1981 Ford F-100 300 I-6 4sp manual.... bought new... 175k hard teenager miles and still operated like a dream.
1972 Ford LTD Brougham 429 Interceptor(ex police chiefs personal drive) C-6 Tranny, bought with 125k miles and driven like a madman for another 85K before the cam finally went out.
2002 Datsun 280ZX 5sp.....bought with 180k and driven to over 300k
1995 Chevy 1500 5.0/auto...bought with 260k on it..damn thing didn't even rattle. Only sold it because of the next find.
1994 Ford Mustang 5.0/5sp...bought with 159k and was just about cherry in every way. One owner, retired Army man.
1990 Dodge Ram D-150..5.2V8/auto...bought with 180k
2001 Dodge Gr Caravan ES 3.8V6/auto...bought with 149k one owner miles...still in use...have complete dealer maintenance records...only thing other than normal maintenance was tie-rod ends at 145k.

The list is a lot longer with a lot of new cars and a several more used, but the picture is clear.

ND13

I've only had two cars literally die on me....the 72 LTD and a 1989 Chevy Celebrity Eurosport that the wife drove after she "Blonded" out the idiot light when the electric cooling fan went out and overheated the engine and cracked the block at 189k miles.

Jstas

I know, it's Slate but it gives a good explanation of why Fiat and Chrysler are good for each other.

http://www.slate.com/id/2214971/

ViperZ

ND13 wrote: »

And for some strange reason he kept buying more and more Chrysler products???

Umm... I'm a "naturalized" Canadian. Meaning that my parents and I had to start literally from nothing after we moved to Canada.
Why Chrysler? Cheap cars, cheap parts, easy to repair at home. But now... thank you, but no thank you...

Jstas

ViperZ wrote: »

Umm... I'm a "naturalized" Canadian. Meaning that my parents and I had to start literally from nothing after we moved to Canada.
Why Chrysler? Cheap cars, cheap parts, easy to repair at home. But now... thank you, but no thank you...

Oh, you're Canadian by choice.

Esplains alot.

tonyb

shack wrote: »

Some may think it is about freedom of choice when it come to big gas guzzling vehicles...but it is more about National Security and long term sustainabiltiy IMO. While it was not necessarily the root cause of the recession we are in today, $4-$5 gas was certainly a catalyst. I remember thinking right after Hurricane Katrina, when the gas supply lines to the southeast were shut off and gas jumped $1.50-$2.00 overnight...how were people going to afford gas? I got my answer when filling up a pump and for the first time costing nearly $50...across from me was a guy in a old beat-up PU truck, who you could tell barely was getting by, put almost $100 of gas in that truck....an paid for it with a credit card. I knew then that a consumer credit problem was no longer a matter of IF...but WHEN.

As a nation we cannot be held hostage by the oil producing nations. Do we really want the likes of Hugo Chavez, the Saudis, etc... dictating the price of a currently irreplaceable commodity? We have to get away from the HUGE demand for oil. I don't care if it is hydrogen, electric, nuclear, solar, wind etc...OR CONSERVATION. China alone is diverting a great deal of the available supplies to fuel their economic growth. The only reason gas is cheap now is low demand. As a nation we can do the same thing with fuel conservation with vehicle fuel consumption. If an electric vehicle were a viable choice right now I would be all over it.

Freedom does not mean individuals have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the impact it has on the rest of society. Individuals have certain rights to choose things within the bounds of society. The freedoms have more to do with ideology, beliefs and personal lifestyle...NOT the right to waste, damage, destroy as one sees fit to the detriment of society as a whole. The constitution does not give anyone the right to drive a big gas guzzling vehicles just because they want to (or can afford it)...if that means the society is at risk because of those actions. There have always been limits to choice. The framers of the constitution did not set up a system of people doing whatever they wanted...just the right to believe whatever they wanted.

Oh...and BTW...we are NOT the most prosperous nation in the world. Depending on what source you want to use, we are between 5th and 22nd. And in fact we are no longer even the largest economy. As an individual nation, yes, but the largest economic "system" is the EU which passed the US in late 2007/ early 2008 due primarily to the sagging US dollar.

Well,after Katrina hit,you couldn't get gas,not because of a shortage of it,but because of regulations that differ from state to state.Could have easily sent tankers full of gas from another state,but nooo,didn't meet their standards.So whats the problem,gas or government?? Oil?? There's plenty if you want to go get it.We don't have to buy from the Saudi's,we can buy from Canada,Mexico,and we do,and better yet,our own,if government would allow it.But since most are in bed with the Saudi's,well,that won't change.Being forced into a behavior is not always good.Yes Shack,freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want and I never said it does,but there has to be limits.Please explain the whole "waste damage and destroy" comment,ya lost me there.If your refering to big SUV's,how do they damage anything?? Use more gas? They do make hybrids,and gas is plentifull.Global warming?? Please,give me a break. GM makes a profit on about 20 models,11 of those are Suv's and trucks.Why???Maybe because construction work isn't done in a toyota compact?? Maybe 4 kids with all their soccer gear or hockey gear will not fit in a Honda civic?Maybe they just feel safer going down the highway with 2 car seats in the back for their 2 yr. olds,who knows.Don't get me wrong,I am all for alternative fuels,don't like the Saudi's anymore than you.But I want to be able to buy an electric car because I want to,not because you said I have to,and certainly not because uncle sam said I have to.

shack

We do not have plenty of oil and it is not readily available. If it were we would have developed it. Yeah, destroying the environment to "get more oil" just so someone can drive an SUV "because they want to" is wrong and I have the right to my opinion as much as you. The land, oceans and environment belong to all of us...not just those that want to exploit it for energy. I see it as inherently wrong that in the span of a few generations, we are on schedule to completely consume a resource that took millions upon millions of years to create. I am a staunch conservative and pro-capitalist...but I am also a conservationist. I want my grand children and great grand children to enjoy the beauty and wonders of this planet as much as I have been able to do. I want them to see a whale, or a Bengal tiger, or an African Elephant in its natural habitat as I have been able to do. I want them to see the Great Smokey Mountains, the Alaskan wilderness, the Grand Canyon as I have been able to do. There has to be a balance between sustaining the population of the Earth and protecting the environment for the future generations. We as Americans on a per capita basis consume a gross disproportionate amount of the natural resources of the planet. As other countries develop, that will change and we will not have the use of those recourses just because we can pay for them as is the case in the past. We must develop methods of sustainable, renewable, plentiful energy. This is for our own good for national security, for self sustainability, for quality of life for the nation as a whole…and oil is a short term patch and not the answer. If conservation is needed to get to that end and one can’t drive their vehicle “of choice”…sorry…they don’t have the right to use and use and use something till it is all gone. That is short sighted, selfish and just plain wrong IMO.

George Grand

Shack DADDY! Amen brother.

pearsall001

Boy! I miss my AMC Gremlin X! Do you think they'll ever bring it back ??? :eek:

sucks2beme

Or Pacer, the greenhouse on wheels.

mhardy6647

pearsall001 wrote: »

Boy! I miss my AMC Gremlin X! Do you think they'll ever bring it back ??? :eek:

Just about 10 years 'til the 50th Anniversary Edition. You heard it hear first!

sucks2beme wrote: »

Or Pacer, the greenhouse on wheels.

Comment is superfluous.

mhardy6647

one word, Benjamin: Matador