`  == Images of 30-98 and Cadet ==  ]]  by General Motors]] The  30-98 was a successful Vauxhall product in the 1920s which became a cult-car. It was, like all Vauxhalls at that time, relatively expensive - say like a Jaguar today. The next image (which to all but a car buff shows the same vehicle with a front bumper) is of the very first real GM product from Vauxhall for which the charge was about 1/3 of the price of the older car. I think we need to show the two images together to demonstrate how GM grafted a common or garden or cooking type car onto the Vauxhall upmarket reputation. That is why I put the two there - why do we have a tank? All tanks look the same, like tanks.  The paragraph of the article headed 1925  to 1939 says ``The company's image and target market were quickly changed, marked particularly by the introduction in 1931 of the first Bedford truck, which was Chevrolet based, along with the low-cost two-litre Vauxhall Cadet.`` Hmmm. Is five full years before a new product a quick change? I do not think so. Look in Wikimedia Commons under 14-40 20-60 80 to see the pure local-design Vauxhalls GM simply left in production with very small upgrades—for another five years and (80) more. Was not the Cadet car rather more important to Vauxhall and us than the Bedford truck? I think so. I am trying to say politely that Charles Bulmer, who I once read regularly for many years, is not in this case a reliable witness (if accurately reported then he is using GM truck PR fluff) or is the obvious to be regarded as original research? As with too much of WP mistaken ideas with citations to poor sources seem to me to be rife in this article.  While I'm here the quite special to enthusiasts naming of old Vauxhalls as A-type E-type etc should not be completely tossed out (for their sake) but left only to support the then conventional names like 20 hp, 14-40 and 30-98 and 23-60 etc etc etc.  I look forward to seeing a revision of this article as discussed by others above when I too will be able to sit on the sidelines and er, . . . comment. In anticipation,   `