Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: speaking of large ridiculous vehicles...

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "William F. Geschwind" <geschwin AT email.unc.edu>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: speaking of large ridiculous vehicles...
  • Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:43:58 -0500


I'm not too proud to admit that I subscribe to the dead tree edition of the
magazine from which that article about the Cadillac Escalde EXT came. Here
is another perfect example of a case where the paper edition (not free) has
more content than the (free) online version. The print edition contains the
exact same article, however with a few additional photos and two large
tables, one detailing the specifications of the vehicle, and another listing
the Car and Driver Test Results for the vehicle. In the Test Results box
they list both the EPA fuel economy (also listed as 12 city/16 highway) as
well as the Car and Driver observed fuel economy, which is listed as 13 mpg.

About the (other) current Cadillacs, yes they are a far cry from those
classic tail-finned wonders of the 50s and 60s, however I think they are a
definite improvement compared to those really sad Cadillacs of the 80s
(anybody remember the Cimarron or that late 80s Eldorado that could have
been mistaken for a Toyota?).

- Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "sovenall" <sovenall AT nc.rr.com>
To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: [internetworkers] RE: speaking of large ridiculous vehicles...


> The Cadillac web site says the EXT gets 12 city/16 highway. To which I can
> only say, "yeah right."
>
> I find the recent Cadillac ad campaign a little sad -- showing old classic
> Cadillacs next to the new ones doesn't reflect well on the new models in
my
> opinion. On the other hand, maybe in forty years I'll think the 2002
models
> look cooler than the current crop. Now *there's* a scary thought.
>
> -Sarah
>
> >From: Kim Flint [mailto:kflint AT buildscape.com]
> >It weighs 5900 pounds, has a 354 hp engine, and costs @ $49,990. Article
> >doesn't mention MPG.
>
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as: geschwin AT email.unc.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page