Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Drew Dowdell

Questions for 68

12 posts in this topic

While I don't agree with, I at least get your stance on FWD, Transverse engines, B-pillars and manual transmissions..... the one I don't get is your aversion to uni-body.

There were a few uni-body cars that I'm sure would suit all the rest of your requirements quite nicely.... so I'm curious if your hatred of uni-body would be directed at them as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I could totally see you pulling one of these out of a barn somewhere to use as a daily driver, yet they're all unibody.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wierd wheels and tires on that Lincoln, but I love the style of the '60s Lincolns... the '60s Lincolns and one of those massive Mopars would make neat weekend cruise toys. (for myself, I need something late model for a daily driver).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check Mate.

Fuselage Chryslers, Future Zetas, Fox Body Mustangs, Hudsons,

hell even Chrysler Airflows are examples of cool Unibodys. But

that having been said there's not one BOF car that I resent for

being over-built super-sturdy, rock solid & heavy, on the other

hand there's plenty of cars that would be more durrable, less

prone to squeaks & rattles, suspension rattle etc. if they were

BOF instead of unibody!

Polite answer to a logical & polite question. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever did that to a 1961 Lincoln is taking a strike against history.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those cars are gorgeous; even the '61 Continental even though it's been hacked up a bit. The Hudson Hornet would definitely be my first choice, followed by the fuselage Chryslers. I almost bought a 1971 Imperial sedan down in Connecticut last summer before I knew how much of a retard the seller was. He only moved down $400, but only if I would also give him my 1977 Cutlass Supreme as well, and this was after I watched him destroy the hood of the car trying to open it and then listening to him tell me that if I didn't buy it that it would either (and Sixty8 can verify any of this as he came along for the ride):

-Go straight to an episode of Unique Whips

-Be sold for parts as it would be an excellent parts car for anybody restoring a '71 Imperial convertible (which doesn't exist)

OR, and this is the best one of all.....

-Have the interior swapped into his '67 Newport coupe drag car. Yes, that's right. He would swap the interior from a 1971 Imperial SEDAN into a 1967 Newport COUPE. He claimed the only difference would be that "the front seat won't flip up."

He also told me that "every once in a while some nigger comes in from the city and offers me $1500 for it but I tell him no because I'm like that."

This was all after he gave me the nickel tour of his "collection," and showed me, among other things, a Volkswagen-based kit car that sorta looked like a Ford GT40 that was supposedly some one of three made fruity grand prize in some f@#ked up Parnelli Jones Pepsi giveaway contest back in the 70's or some other friggen thing and claimed it was a real GT40...... with an air-cooled Volkswagen Beetle engine. Perfect example of a person who deserves nothing having everything. And another bunch of fine old cars die at the hands of a retard who is all talk and no action, and brainless to top it off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad and the BEST LOOKING CAR EVER BUILT.........................

post-436-1186104180_thumb.jpg

Okay, maybe I'm a bit biased..........

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a '70 Chrysler New Yorker -- 440/4bbl -- loved that car! Particularly that I paid $50 for it!

post-236-1186112844_thumb.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that guy in Conn. is a stupid ignorant retard.

Too bad he's got like 20 classic cars rotting in abandoned gas station.

Getting back to the whole BOF/unibody argument, those fuslage

Mopars are NOTHING like the pepsi-can POS crap that the Japanese

and many of the American manufacturer's are pushing on us these

days. There is more structure in the left rear rocker panel of the

typical 1960s unibody Chrysler than in an entire new Toyota, and

quite possibly in most way too soft modern cars would flex a lot less

if they were overbuilt like those old battleships.

Here's three cars that would be better IMHO if they were BOF:

(& by that I mean the 100% modern hydroformed style frame)

1. last gen Park Ave.

2. current DTS (even if it did stay FWD)

3. Chrysler 300C

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:

My disdain for full-size Unibody cars started with my friend Mike.

He's in his early 50s, and he is the one who got me hooked on

demolition derbys back in 2000. Anyway he used to work in

Havehirill Massachusetts in the 1970s & 1980s for a coachbuilder

who made short-to-medium limousines.

Mike told me the biggest horror stories you could ever imagine

about the poor build quality, lack of structure, crappy tolerances

& lightweight, flimsy chassis on the FWD/unibody Cadillacs of the

1980s. He hated those cars with a passion. Nevermind trying to

stretch them for limousine duty, his opinion was that those cars

were unsafe and too soft 100% stock with not a speck of rust.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to RAPE that Lincoln :drool:

You do know in most Northern states, sex with cars is illegal, however in Tex-Ass you're fine! :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0