balthazar

Boy that quiz is F-ed up. I chose 440 Six-Pack for the engine and it tells me I'm a '71 'cuda with a Hemi. Must be mercedes electronics running the processing...

Whether a '70 or a '72, the 'cuda is a fake: it wears AAR striping & logos, and the AAR was '71 only. Dodge ran a big pic of the Challenger T/A in it's '72 Scat Pack 8-page ad, only there never was a '72 T/A (sister model to the AAR).

Lookit: Cort breaks into the Big Three-Ohs!

Displacement is a mathematical computation of bore x stroke x # of cylinders. I have read more than once that it does not include combustion chamber volume (valve area above the piston at TDC/above the top of the bore.

LOL: deftone feels old! Dude, you have no idea.

Well, per the clue, a 6-cylinder would be at least 6 liters (365 CI) and an 8 would be at least 8 liters (488 CI). I believe the Duesy SC 8 was a 'mere' 420 CI. It's bretheren Cord & Auburn didn't have any SC motors as big, I am fairly certain. Hmmmm...

Fly was being sarcastic, Sixty. I wish you two would knock it off.

Most accounts claim the same: a running '50s/'60s concept is unusual. Most of GM's '50s concepts ran:RAN~ Buick: '51 XP-300, '53 Wildcat I, '54 Wildcat II, '56 Centurion, '58 XP-75. Cadillac: '53 LeMans, '54 LaEspada, '54 El Camino, '55 Eldo Brougham, '59 Cyclone. Chevrolet: '55 Biscayne, '56 Impala, '58 Corvette XP-700 Olds: '54 Cutlass, '54 F-88, '56 Golden Rocket Pontiac: '53 Parisienne, '54 Bonneville Special, '54 Strato-Streak, '55 Strato-Star, '56 Club deMer, GM/GMC: '51 LeSabre, '54 Firebird I, '55 L'Universalle, '56 Firebird II, '58 Firebird III. Total RUNNING -- 26 Didn't Run~ '56 Eldorado Brougham Town Car (tho it does today). Not sure~ '55 Wildcat III, '53 Starfire, '55 Delta, Total Not Sure/ Not Running: 4 I omitted production-based concepts (ie: '54 Roadmaster Landau), as those are by default, powered. I'm sure I unintentionally left a few pure custom concepts out which might alter the results, tho not greatly. And note also that those that had multiple examples.... if one ran almost always the others did too (ie: all (4) '53 LeMans ran). Most of Chrysler Corp's '50s concepts ran, also; the '58 Cabana being the lone offhand non-runner I can think of. Ford, by comparison, has a truely dismal showing in this arena. Running: '53 X-100, '54 XM-800, '55 Futura. Not Sure: '53 XL-500, '56 XM-Turnpike Cruiser. Still- the idea that 'most' concept cars from the '50s are rollers needs to die. Same would hold true for the '60s, I am fairly certain.

I'll give you the MoPar seam- true dat. But the best stylistic flow of the two camps' efforts I still must give to MoPar. Not quite as polished but works better (to my eye).

You got it ass-backwards, my friend. Look no further than mitsu and.... toyota for outright lying to the public for years about defects in order "to get away with it".

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit I dunno; kinda reminds me of another 'dangler': The Power of And {that was it, right?} I don't find grammatically incorrect taglines/prose appealing; I keep trying to finish it in my mind. It can work, but it would depend heavily on the visual/context. Frankly, I wasn't tired of Break Through yet.

Yeah- a huge one: >>"2000 Data - ABA... 2005 Data - ABA..."<< There's no way this is accurate. It may be all we have to go on, but that doesn't mean it's accurate. Chrysler --post-300 mind you-- went from 47 to 56?? mercedes went from 45 to 58??? 58?? DCX is dying on it's feet if this were true! There's other issues with the data: Merc: 905, Merc ABA: 55 Linc: 906, Linc ABA: 63 If age were the primary factor, those two score's would be much farther apart, therefore, I fail to see the corrolation with the theory. I can smell the statistical invalidity from here...

Can't be: XP-833 is the '64 Pontiac Banshee.

Good one, Fly. Sadly, my '40 COE is the middle wheelbase (134"); if I had the largest (157") I could continue up my 'wheelbase ladder' right in my backyard. The vintage is the same as the half-track posted above.

Andrea Doria always reminds me of the Norseman. I keep hoping that one of the divers on it over time will bring back a pic. Fly- most of the '50s concepts cars were fully operational (tho Ford had a bunch in the 1st half of the decade that were more often scale models than life-size).

Go ahead, AmRev- what's the Mustan nickname? hudson+ >>"I think they look more homogenous than the Superbird/Daytona did. They look less "kit car" than the Chrysler products."<< I disagree. The KC/SS nose looks so heavy & droopy, and somehow it's too 'soft-edged' on the production Torino/Cyclone shell. The Daytona/Superbird noses were sharper & rode higher; IMO they were much better integrated.

My wife once owned a 4-cyl '87 Mustang hatch. Eventually the heater core let go. Repair cost (circa 1993): $600- you had to purge the A/C system, remove the console & the entire dash. I once changed the heater core in my '64 Cat while hanging out with my buddies late at night at the 24-hr gas station- took about 20 minutes. There are multiple viewpoints as far as judging something 'better'. razor- IMO If this gas thing continues to become more burdensome- the econobox will make a marked return and the SUV will retreat to a degree- making some room for the MinimalistKar. It may not end up being as stripped as -say- a '60 American, but there is still at least a niche market for it.

White car is the '70 Ford King Cobra prototype/concept. There is also a yellow one still existing. Red car is the '70 Merc Super Spoiler II. The one in this pic has a clay nose, but I believe another was built. One of the two (perhaps a clone) has 'covered' headlights- really smooths out the look. Ocn is right: they were Daytona/Superbird responses. Still puzzled by the 'stang, but I never studied up on them much. It's a '69-70 body with a '71 nose. Is it the styling proposal for the '70 Shelby? The 'production' '70 Shelby Mustangs were left-over '69s; no SMs were built in '70.

I know the 1st 2, but the Mustang one: not coming to me right now...

Right on, HE! I have been thinking about just this for some time: the MinimalistKar. Bare bones, solid build, easy for the shadetree mechanic to service it, great longevity & easily modifiable. The Model T / Beetle all over again. I believe there's a real market for one. Who's gonna step up & build it?

Got it: it's the '55 LaSalle II 4-dr hardtop, which didn't feature the unconventional 'flying buttress' rear quarters that the '55 LaS II roadster did. This is the ONLY semi-rear shot I've ever seen, at the galaxy's greatest Cadillac website. Also proves at least who's garage the Plainsman is in: Joe Bortz of Highland Park IL: he owns both '55 LaSalle II concepts.

It does, Fly. {angrily stomps off to check reference files.....}

With only 2 tanks under my belt so far (not nearly enough to get an accurate measure) in all 'city' driving, I've gotten 16.1. Planning a highway trip this weekend- we'll see what that tank averages.

It's all the electronics & other sh!t packed into it. My '64 Catalina (whlbs: 120", overall: 213") has roughly 15 lbs of plastic in it, an iron block V-8, framed glass and all steel body/bumpers, yet without options it weighs 3770. Be glad you don't own a mercedes roadster- the one 2-seater, which must easily have 1000 lbs of cheap plastic in it, weighs 4400 lbs. That's 400+ lbs more than my F-150 4x2 I6.

No, no; you're still in the (current) mindset that every GM product must somehow 'fit on the ladder' with all other GM products. That simply does not apply to the past. A Corvette was a Corvette: styling, powertrains, features that made it a Chevy Corvette. A Pontiac Banshee would be just that: a Pontiac-designed & engineered 2-seater with appropriate styling, features & powertrains. It doesn't (didn't) matter in the least that the Corvette existed- this was a completely different car. Comparisons to the vette are natural but would not invalidate the Banshee's existance. Of course, Chevy balked at the idea and whined and got their way. Again.