balthazar

Casey Kasem, FTW! BTW- that's not a Chevelle, that's just a Skylark with trim changes!

^ Same series of ads, Ford pitched against the Cadillac Seville in a laughable attempt to convince people they looked exactly the same.

Ad world is full of pointless car commercials... AND lux brands comparing with other brands. We've all seen it and it's nothing new. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHoYZCvN2_A

>>"CTS-V vs. C300? That was irrelevant to begin with."<< It wasn't intended to be relevant; it played to the perception out there for the many unawares that it might take a V to dust a c300. Towing it away is the visual for 'putting it on the trailer'- drag race speak for 'lost the race'.

The '56 is so beautiful... but it actually has a very short front overhang. The rear IS long, but it's perfect. I kno; I'm nitpicking, but the '56 CdV is my fav '50s non-Eldorado Caddy. Looks smashing on the wires (and I generally hate wires), which were last factory offered in '54. Florentine Curve roof, 'hump' fins, quarter scoop, thru-the-bumper duals, Dagmars, just wow.

Nice swanky '56. 'Newport' then designated hardtop. A number of hardtop names morphed into model names later. Boy were BMWs loaded with cheap body hardware back then, plus stamped steel rims. Cheesy. Did a walk around of a 190SL recently- more of the same cheap cheesiness. Check the giant rubber gas filler grommet as the filler neck pokes thru the rear fascia. Grumman-esque.

done

Dey ALL of 'em sweet.

Snarky! Balthy like.

Vid says it's a 2-seater; Olds- can you confirm? Interior looks decent for the $10K price he says he'd like to hit... but I didn't sit in one.

Buick 8 was a good people story, light on the Buick tho.

Surprising, since the video says the car cost $80K to build. Never heard of it before yesterday. Still; an interior that small should be relatively easy to spruce up; it's the mechanicals that have to be right.

It has it's inconsistencies (years ago I actually re-wrote my own version 'fixing' details & events to my satisfaction), but the concept and a bunch of the early imagery is straight up my alley. It helped that I picked the book up from a friend with absolutely no idea of the storyline. King gets fairly predictable after a half dozen books, but I am still willing to suspend reality with him for a tale.

WWs not my style; B-59 has blackwalls. However, a single dorsal fin on this might work But a streamliner body would be tops: http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/05/Springstreamliner_1000.jpg

If I could get some retro-deco body on it, I'd run errands in it. 0-60 : 4.0 sec...

Well, you're biased against '50s cars, but the '57-58s are true beauties with excellent proportions and no goofy details. Inspired. I would call '64 the return to 'good looking', cohesive Plymouths, but they're still not inspired like the aforementioned.

hyperv6 ~ >>"Sorry I am not fooled. GM used the term A body for a reason as they are all based on the same platform. HA! You DID get fooled- these cars don't have "platforms". >>"I like how you say with the right parts you can bolt in Ford rear. In my case you can bolt in the Chevy with no extra parts."<< You'll need Chevy brackets, relocated, for the Buick's frame to accept the Chevy motor mounts. If you have an auto, you'll also need a Chevy-patterned trans to replace the likely BOP HydraMatic. You also may need to swap driveshafts to get the right length. I would call these 'extra parts'. >>"Now you argument of a Ford rear in a Chevy is not valid as it will not just bolt in unless it is a custom aftermarket unit. Now on the other hand the 12 bolt and 10 bolt stock Chevelle rear will bolt right in to a GTO. It is so simple that chimp you brought in could almost do it."<< The chimp would do well to consider replacing the Chevelle's weak, C-clip axle for a BOP rear. Ford rear does not have to be a 'custom aftermarket' one, you just have to be friendly with a welder. >>"Sure you can bolt a different dash in it as well door panels add a little more insulation and plop you division engine in it and call it a Buick that is fine but the basic car is a A body no matter how you spin.... I mean trim it."<< What about the 100% different exterior sheet metal? That is a lot more than 'trim'. >>"Many of these cars even came off the same assmbly line built by the same workers, they were not Buick workers or Olds or Pontiac but GM workers."<< The Flint plant, Lansing plant and the Pontiac plant workers would disagree with you.

^ It is, but overall the car is about as sexy Aretha Franklin. Pass.

I kno the book pretty well. Arnie's friend drives a Duster. Arnie's boss has an Imperial (mentioned once, may have said it was a '66). Repperton drove a Camaro. Would swear there was no '59 Chevy featured in Christine and no character in the present time of the book drove anything from the '50s. Flashback scenes did of course mention cars from when the Fury was new. The '58 Fury came in 1 color only- Buckskin Beige. 'Autumn Red' was not an option and I've never heard of a Fury factory painted other than BB. King flubbed a lot of details about the Fury in order to 'mainstream' the car in some cases (adding door lock buttons, changing the trans to a shift lever, calling it a 4-door, etc) and I believe just didn't bother getting some of the other info factual ('58 Plymouth red was called 'Toreador Red'). The body length 'check mark' was gold anodized textured aluminum, the same spear was optional on the Belvedere (at least). Most of the movie cars were Belvederes painted up to look like Furys on the line; none of the cars interiors visible in the movie used the Fury's exclusive gold & white interior. Even in 1983, Furys were known by the production company & the hobby to be too rare & valuable (tho that would explode after the movie) to intentionally mash up. Check it: http://www.plymouthcentral.com/Christine2.html http://www.forwardlook.net/features/billandeds.htm I saw a concours-restored '58 Fury a year or 2 ago at the Lead East show here in Jersey, gorgeous correct car.

Well put, SAmadei. I have a 'Chrysler' rear in my Buick, and a Buick motor 13 years newer... tho I could have just as 'easily' put a Ford motor 20 years older in. All these things (as well as putting a Chevy 350 in where a Buick 340 lived) take is a welder.

Met up with my buddy yesterday, learned he bought a '77 Citicar (one of these, tho not this nice: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Citicar.jpg/250px-Citicar.jpg), so I was poking around on the net and came across this interesting freak. It's got highly unconventional proportions and it's apparently fast as hell, so I find it mildly interesting:

That "intended" Camino scheme above works nicely. I never cared for multi-colors that ignore/defy body lines... but with cars like the BMW higher up- there's just not anything in body lines to work with. This however...:

You should be a speech writer for a politician. Engines are usually considered 'hard mechanicals', not to mention often the 'soul' of an automobile. Good luck bolting a Chevy water pump on the front of a Buick 340. It's not about 'positive/negative', IMO it's just the reality. Individuality is a virtue, not a hinderance, and that extends to automobiles, too. If I wanted 'easy', I'd own a '60s Mustang. Frankly, I'd prefer MORE separation in the GM intermediates in the '60s; it was the beginning of a long slippery slope GM is still on in some regards. If you want to call that a 'positive', knock yourself out.

Auto. Was extremely clean- didnt check the interior out.