 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / February 200757 Plymouth to be unearthed from 50 year Time Capsule
http://www.buriedcar.com/ > http://www.buriedcar.com/ I know it has been a long time since Plymouth closed it doors, but Plymouth was made by Chrysler, not Ford, GM or Pontiac. You have some wrong newsgroups. Jeff >> http://www.buriedcar.com/ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff I think these are all automotive newsgroups, although it has been buried for 50 years the Plymouth is still an Auto. >>> http://www.buriedcar.com/ >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think these are all automotive newsgroups, although it has been > buried for 50 years the Plymouth is still an Auto. Plus, the '57/'58 Fury's are probably some of the best looking cars ever made. Sure as hell a lot more attractive than a 57/58 Ford or Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, etc.. In my opinion anyway. Christine from the Stephen King novel/film was a '57 or '58 Fury. The design concepts for these cars was the 'forward look'. It'll be interesting to see if the car still looks brand new. Hopefully, they'll start it up and drive it a bit. > Plus, the '57/'58 Fury's are probably some of the best looking cars ever > made. Sure as hell a lot more attractive than a 57/58 Ford or Chevy, > Pontiac, Olds, etc.. In my opinion anyway. Not just you, Grapple. Some of those cars looked good. And properly kitted out, they ran like a scalded ape. That was why I bought one, it was one outstanding looking, gutsy, car. A year later it was a rusting rattle trap so I dumped it. Unfortunately I bought a '58 Chevy 2 DR HT and it too was a rust bucket. ;) mike >> Plus, the '57/'58 Fury's are probably some of the best looking cars ever >> made. Sure as hell a lot more attractive than a 57/58 Ford or Chevy, >> Pontiac, Olds, etc.. In my opinion anyway. > > Not just you, Grapple. Some of those cars looked good. And properly > kitted out, they ran like a scalded ape. >>>> http://www.buriedcar.com/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- I dont know about better looking than a 57 Ford or Chevy its a matter of opinion but definately better looking than a 2007 Toyota Ford or Chevy family car or any other family car made in 2007. <...> > I dont know about better looking than a 57 Ford or Chevy its a matter of > opinion but definately better looking than a 2007 Toyota Ford or Chevy > family car or any other family car made in 2007. That, too, is a matter of opinion. I think the newer cars are better looking. But them again, I thought the Pontiac Aztec is way cool, and I own a Ford Contour. More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older ones, IMHO. Jeff > More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older > ones, IMHO. > > Jeff yeah, fuel injection and its related drivability improvements are nice, but on those old cars, you could fix them with a few wrenches and bailing wire. > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But them again, I thought the Pontiac Aztec is way cool, and I own a Ford > Contour. IMHO you're batting 50% there... > More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older ones, > IMHO. I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over the last few decades. We've added lots of gadgets, but some of the older vehicles are still more fun to drive and just as functional. Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of Federally-mandated safety equipment. The closest thing we have now would be a Mini Cooper S or maybe a Mazda Miata; both still weigh in at around 2500 lbs, compare and contrast with an original VW Scirocco, 1700-2000 lbs. depending on year, or the Triumph TR-6 to which the Miata was the spiritual successor, 2200 lbs. with a big straight six engine as opposed to the Miata's little four-cylinder. Or if you want to get real silly, the original Mini at its porkiest never got much above 1600 lbs... Hell, the Shelby 289 Cobra weighed about 2100-2200 lbs. Today it'd probably be two tons with all the mandated equipment. This is progress? nate >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > IMHO you're batting 50% there... So would arguing that I am batting 0%. >> More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older >> ones, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the last few decades. We've added lots of gadgets, but some of the > older vehicles are still more fun to drive and just as functional. Let's see: better handling, air bags (and I don't mean my wife), CD players and iPod connections, air conditioning, better transmissions (in my opinion, that means smoother-shifting standards, others would say that CVT is a great inprovement), electric motors, sun roofs, anti-lock brakes, intermittant wipers, doors that open by themselves in vans, and run-flat tires. And the engines and cars are more reliable. > Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap > sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to get real silly, the original Mini at its porkiest never got much > above 1600 lbs... I think the VW GTi is one and it is still out there. On the other hand, you can get a VW td and or hybrid and get like 40+ mpg. And in the tdi, the glow plugs start the engine in less 30 sec. > Hell, the Shelby 289 Cobra weighed about 2100-2200 lbs. Today it'd > probably be two tons with all the mandated equipment. > > This is progress? Considering all the improvements, including better brakes, the improved ability to survive crashes, anti-lock brakes and decreased polution, I would say so. Jeff > nate I suppose we could all drive King Midgets with their 8HP Wisconsin single cylinder engines. Or Biscuters. Less stuff to go wrong! > >> <...> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So would arguing that I am batting 0%. IMHO the Contour was a very underrated car, and I'm still shaking my head that Ford let it die while continuing on with that POS Taurus. > >> More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older > >> ones, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let's see: better handling, mostly due to tires. > air bags (and I don't mean my wife), CD players > and iPod connections, extraneous stuff I could do without > air conditioning, available since the '50s > better transmissions (in my opinion, > that means smoother-shifting standards, others would say that CVT is a great > inprovement), Hmm, my "old" T-10 with a Hurst shifter shifts as well as any new car i've driven > electric motors, sun roofs, anti-lock brakes, intermittant > wipers, doors that open by themselves in vans, and run-flat tires. more extraneous stuff I could do without > And the > engines and cars are more reliable. I disagree! My old cars have been quite reliable; I'm sure that a new car might have incrementally longer times between repairs but would undoubtedly be significantly more expensive to fix and/or jobs that I'd do myself on an older car would have to be jobbed out to a mechanic. > > Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap > > sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I think the VW GTi is one and it is still out there. A perfect example of what I'm talking about. The original GTI was a light, nimble, economical "hot hatch" that was a blast to drive. The *new* GTI weighs more than some midsized cars of the 60's. Or to put it another way, an original GTI probably weighs about 2/3 what the new GTI does. I've owned A1, A2, and A4 chassis GTI's, of all of them I think I'd rather have the A1 back than either of the others. The A4 comes a close second, but I wouldn't consider it a sporty car at all - more like a small luxury car that happened to be fast. > On the other hand, you can get a VW td and or hybrid and get like 40+ mpg. > And in the tdi, the glow plugs start the engine in less 30 sec. I'd *love* to have one of those TDI engines in an older VW body! I bet it'd be a hoot. > > Hell, the Shelby 289 Cobra weighed about 2100-2200 lbs. Today it'd > > probably be two tons with all the mandated equipment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff better brakes are good, but I really could care less about the "improved ability to survive crashes" - first of all, it's irrelevant to my life, and secondly, cars have been pretty good in that respect for decades. The latest round of "improvements" only incrementally improves the survivability at the cost of dramatically increased complexity and weight. Anti-lock brakes? IMHO they are a gimmick; some systems are very good, some are crap, in all cases they are completely unused by motorists 99% of the time, if the driver is any good. Decreased pollution, I'm all in favor of that, but that could have been accomplished without tacking on all the other stuff I'm complaining about. Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm a retro-grouch. So be it :) nate "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > IMHO the Contour was a very underrated car, and I'm still shaking my > head that Ford let it die while continuing on with that POS Taurus. Never drove a Contour, but the biggest drawback was the mundane, albeit practical, styling. There was nothing about it to grab your attention. No striking colors. Same reason when I bou ght my new car I did not consider the Ford 500. >> Let's see: better handling, > > mostly due to tires. It is more than tires that lets a good car corner and maintain stability far superior to most cars of yesteryear. Always some exceptins witht he performance cars, but the sedans have been greatly improved. >> air conditioning, > > available since the '50s True, but when the compressor kicked in, you could feel the performance drop and see the gas gauge go down rapidly. I had to turn the AC off on a couple of cars to climb hills. Not today. > Hmm, my "old" T-10 with a Hurst shifter shifts as well as any new car > i've driven That may also be tgrue for you, but not may of us used the Hurst shifter. It has been years since I've owned anything like that so I enjoy the 5 speed automatic that I can shift manualy with a tap of hte shifter. >> And the >> engines and cars are more reliable. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd do myself on an older car would have to be jobbed out to a > mechanic. Thinking back, in my last three cars, over 350,000 miles, I had one repair, a water pump to one of the three engines. Each went 100k with NO repairs other than oil changes and air filters. Same plugs, no points, no carburator adjustments, no sticking heat risers, chokes that did not go on, no setting of the timing. I consider that far superior to cleaning plugs at 5k, replacing them and points at 10k, rings at 50 to 75k, etc. No stalling because the accelerator ump int he carburator was not working, now adjusting of the mxiture or idle. Yes, you could do most of the work yourself, but now it is not needed. "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message news:8XsAh.43978 Same reason when I bou ght my new car I did not consider > the Ford 500. I was a little interested in the 500, but found out it was essentially an upper market abortion of what Ford did with Volvo. I liked Volvos okay, but Ford could screw up anything. Wife and I have finally made up our minds. We will buy an Avalon, and hope GM comes back from the ashes. <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message > Wife and I have finally made up our minds. We will buy an Avalon, and > hope > GM comes back from the ashes. Nice car. I know one Lexus owner that prefers his wife's Avalon. <...> > IMHO the Contour was a very underrated car, and I'm still shaking my > head that Ford let it die while continuing on with that POS Taurus. I think it is kind of ugly. But I only see the hood when I drive. ;-) I don't think it was underrated. It was a Car and Driver top ten for 2 or 3 years. And it was one of the top ten selling cars during that time period. Plus, it got almost no advertising. And, it didn't die. Think Mondeo. Available in Europe and other countries. >> >> More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older >> >> ones, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > mostly due to tires. Really? Tires, 4 wheel independent suspension, stiffer frames, etc. >> air bags (and I don't mean my wife), CD players >> and iPod connections, > > extraneous stuff I could do without I wouldn't want to be without an airbag in a crash. >> air conditioning, > > available since the '50s Yet today's air conditioning is more efficent and less damaging to the environment. >> better transmissions (in my opinion, >> that means smoother-shifting standards, others would say that CVT is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > more extraneous stuff I could do without Yet a lot of people don't do without them. >> And the >> engines and cars are more reliable. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd do myself on an older car would have to be jobbed out to a > mechanic. Yet most people couldn't fix an old car today. Today's cars go many more miles than the ones did back in the 70s and 80s, all without carb adjustments, replacing plugs often or putting in new points. >> > Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap >> > sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > comes a close second, but I wouldn't consider it a sporty car at all - > more like a small luxury car that happened to be fast. Then buy a used GTi. >> On the other hand, you can get a VW td and or hybrid and get like 40+ >> mpg. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to my life, and secondly, cars have been pretty good in that respect > for decades. Irrelevent to your life? Only if you don't ride in cars. Decades ago, cars didn't even have seat belts. Today's cars can avoid crashes and survive crashes better than ever before. > The latest round of "improvements" only incrementally > improves the survivability at the cost of dramatically increased [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have been accomplished without tacking on all the other stuff I'm > complaining about. Then stick to your old cars. Brakes are unused 99% of the time. Perhaps you should do without them. The same is true with my engine. I only use it for about 4 hours a week. So nearly 99% of the time, the engines are unused. Jeff > Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm a retro-grouch. So be it :) > > nate >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the last few decades. We've added lots of gadgets, but some of the >older vehicles are still more fun to drive and just as functional. I posted on that topic a couple years ago and was roundly beaten about the head and shoulders for suggesting it. But I still believe that there has been very little significant change in automobile design since approximately 1965. Putting aside the essentially meaningless gadgetry that has nothing to do with the basic functional needs a car should supply, there was all the basic stuff available in a deluxe 1965 car, you could get stick shift or automatic, air conditioning, power steering and brakes, windshield washer, two speed ELECTRIC wipers, radio, carpet, etc. There have been a lot of manufacturing improvements, better rust proofing, fancier radios (but that has nothing to do with car design), more speeds in the transmission, and stuff like that but really there is almost nothing new of significance to 90% of the people who drive a car. If you want to got to even more basic functionality, it was all there in the late 40's. >Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap >sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >nate >>I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather >>disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over >>the last few decades. We've added lots of gadgets, but some of the >>older vehicles are still more fun to drive and just as functional. Today's cars all are kinda bland and boring. They all are comfortable, practical, start up everytime thanks to their many sensors, computers, FI. So they're great, and I shouldn't be complaining. But some of the old cars are cool to drive. I was driving along the Pacific Northwest coast a few summers ago, and in front of some people's small house was a sea foam green late 50's/early 60's VW bug. Not a full convertable, but it had the cloth top where most of the top slides all the way back. The bug wasn't in mint shape. It had a few battle scars, dents, faded paint in spots but you could tell it was a daily driver. Very cool car. With the top slid back, probably a blast to drive into the small town for coffee or errands. I guess I need to get me an old VW now! >>>I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather >>>disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- >>>I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather >>>disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > town > for coffee or errands. I guess I need to get me an old VW now. You iz correct! Old cars are cool...but an VW bug does not exactly fit that category. A 57 Chevy or old 67 GTO maybe but VW?,....naw. >>>I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather >>>disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message > There have been a lot of manufacturing > improvements, better rust proofing, fancier radios (but that has > nothing to do with car design), more speeds in the transmission, and > stuff like that but really there is almost nothing new of significance > to 90% of the people who drive a car. If you want to got to even more > basic functionality, it was all there in the late 40's. There will probably not be any major changes in functionality either. Improvements of existing systems, yes. Today's cars are more refined, more efficient and easier driving, but windows going up and down with a motor is still the same idea. > "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message >> There have been a lot of manufacturing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more efficient and easier driving, but windows going up and down with a > motor is still the same idea. Yet the idea of an electic motor driving the car along with the engine is a rather new idea, I think. And it has only been implemented successfully in the US in the last decade or so. There is also an all electric car in the works, with a gasoline motor that drives a generator. This is something different, too. Jeff >> motor is still the same idea. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Jeff The idea of an electric motor driving a car is old. Old, old, Oh, Ell, Dee, OLD. As early as the 1830's (yes... that's EIGHTEEN-THIRTIES), inventors were developing carriages that were driven by electric motors. There are advertisements for electric cars going back from today through the 1970's, and into the early 1900's. Today's electric cars are not "new" and are not "innovative" by any means. They're merely a return to an old technology that was abandoned because of the discovery of cheap Texas oil in the 1920's, the developement of the electric starter (which eleminated hand-cranked starting of gasoline engines), and the developement of a highway system that allowed higher travelling speeds, and encouraged longer travel ranges than the electric cars of the time would reach.  SignatureRay Sirois SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS http://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6080 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6023 >>> motor is still the same idea. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > inventors were developing carriages that were driven by electric > motors. Read what I wrote "electic motor driving the car along with the engine." I was not talking about all electric cars. I was talking about hybrids. Next time I will spell it for those who are too stupid to undersand or to get a clue. Jeff > There are advertisements for electric cars going back from > today through the 1970's, and into the early 1900's. Today's electric [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > travelling speeds, and encouraged longer travel ranges than the > electric cars of the time would reach. >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > to 90% of the people who drive a car. If you want to got to even more > basic functionality, it was all there in the late 40's. Better and more reliable crash protection, engines, transmissions, fewer repairs, better radios and more creature comforts are significant to over 90% of the people who drive a car. Otherwise, the cars from the late 40s would still be on the road. >>Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap >>sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >>nate >>>> <...> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Otherwise, the cars from the late 40s would still be on the road. That's all true but the basic functionality has not changed. A plumber in 1949 would have had a panel truck with some tool boxes in the back and various other tools. A plumber in 2007 has the same basic vehicle as he goes about his business. If you gave him a brand new 1949 model to replace his 2007 model he would not miss a beat in doing his work other then missing the AC in some parts of the country. >>>Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap >>>sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> >>>nate <...> > That's all true but the basic functionality has not changed. A > plumber in 1949 would have had a panel truck with some tool boxes in > the back and various other tools. A plumber in 2007 has the same > basic vehicle as he goes about his business. If you gave him a brand > new 1949 model to replace his 2007 model he would not miss a beat in > doing his work other then missing the AC in some parts of the country. The same is true of a horse and carrage, except that it is bit slower. Jeff ><...> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jeff No, the basic design of a horse and carriage is fundamentally different. But you are right that he could get by with the HC albeit he could not carry nearly the amount of tools or travel quickly, or "gas up" rapidly. That's the kind of fundamental differences I'm talking about. >><...> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "gas up" rapidly. That's the kind of fundamental differences I'm > talking about. My great great great grandfather was a plumber in the early 1800's and he drove a pimped out Conastoga wagon with 40 inch rims. His horse power was provided by a team of Budweiser Clydesdales. "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message Putting aside the essentially meaningless > gadgetry that has nothing to do with the basic functional needs a car > should supply, there was all the basic stuff available in a deluxe > 1965 car, you could get stick shift or automatic, air conditioning, > power steering and brakes, windshield washer, two speed ELECTRIC > wipers, radio, carpet, etc. That gadgetry didnt necessarily make things better, did it, Ashton? > "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message > Putting aside the essentially meaningless [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That gadgetry didnt necessarily make things better, did it, Ashton? Personally, I wish the days when there weren't windshield washers, power brakes and air conditioning weren't around. Nothing like not being able to see out the window in the bad weather. It is always fun trying to get warm before heaters, too. I suggest that if you leave in the Northeast, you just go in your car. Don't turn on the windshield washer. Keep the off. And simulate not having power brakes by stopping real slowly. And just for fun , don't turn on the heat. Then tell us if they make things better. Jeff > > "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message > > Putting aside the essentially meaningless [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff The electronic gadgetry doesnt make much better. Electric windshield wipers were a great step forward from those manifold vacuum driven Ps.O.S. We always had heaters in our cars, even back to the 41 Ford we drove. Air conditioning came later, but was a godsend. It did not have a $600 computer. It had an on/off position and a thermostat. Not bad, really. > <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jeff Odd that windshield washers have been available since at least the early 50's, and that power brakes don't actually let you stop any faster, isn't it? nate >> "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message >> Putting aside the essentially meaningless [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Jeff The point is not that modern cars are not "better" in that they have more features, the heaters and wipers work better, the transmissions are more efficient, etc,. But that's just refinement. The basic design of the vehicle is the same, the functionality is the same, and in many ways there's not much different even in the "better" part. A 1960 Caddy didn't have great handling perhaps but it was comfortable and had all the creature comforts of any significance unless you think cup holders constitute basic functions of a car. <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message >> , two speed ELECTRIC >> wipers, . > > That gadgetry didnt necessarily make things better, did it, Ashton? Electric wipers that run when you push down the pedal going up a hill are a huge improvement over the vacuum motors. I don't think that is a gadget at all. > <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message > >> , two speed ELECTRIC [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > huge improvement over the vacuum motors. I don't think that is a gadget at > all. They've also been around for close to 70 years now. I'm not aware of any mainstream vehicles that used vacuum wipers past the mid-50's. I'm guessing that Packard was one of the last; and by the end, most vehicles used an auxiliary vacuum pump off either the fuel pump or the oil pump instead of manifold vacuum. I will grant you that there were some pretty dramatic improvements in vehicles during the first half of the 20th century; the difference between a "brass era" car and a 50's car is incredible. You could pluck anyone off the street today and put them behind the wheel of a decent 50's car and with a little familiarization they could drive it safely and comfortably in today's traffic. Which was the whole point that several people were trying to make earlier in this thread. A case could be made that the American automotive industry peaked around 1971 and it would be difficult to argue with that; certainly the period between about 1976 and only a few years ago was witness to some seriously suckful products put out by once-proud manufacturers. nate Video on the 57 Plymouth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2cPBl6scJk >> <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message >> >> , two speed ELECTRIC [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > nate > They've also been around for close to 70 years now. I'm not aware of > any mainstream vehicles that used vacuum wipers past the mid-50's. > I'm guessing that Packard was one of the last; and by the end, most > vehicles used an auxiliary vacuum pump off either the fuel pump or the > oil pump instead of manifold vacuum. Ford Falcons of the early '60s had vacuum wipers, and American Motors used them through the late sixties. The later fifties was a great era for gaudy automobile design. Chrysler took it a step further with their land yachts that had such quirky features as big tail fins, a rear view mirror that stuck up from the dashboard, an odd shaped steering wheel, and push-button transmission controls. The 57 Plymouth gave a preview of the dual headlight look with the parking light next to the headlight. It resembled a face with a black eye. >> They've also been around for close to 70 years now. I'm not aware of >> any mainstream vehicles that used vacuum wipers past the mid-50's. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the parking light next to the headlight. It resembled a face with a black > eye. Still gotta love the Lincoln Futura. Awesome looking car. Too bad it never went into production. > Still gotta love the Lincoln Futura. Awesome looking car. Too bad it > never went into production. It became the Batmobile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> Still gotta love the Lincoln Futura. Awesome looking car. Too bad it >> never went into production. > > It became the Batmobile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True. >> <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message >> >> , two speed ELECTRIC [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >nate The best car I ever had was my 69 Firebird 400. It was quieter on the road then my 99GT, driving position and seat was better, interior was nicer looking, and steering was actually quicker and more precise feeling. Handling was worst though. Mileage in normal driving was not great but I got about 15 mpg on a fast trip and once got 21 mpg doing a steady 55 mph from phx to LA during the 72 oil crisis. The 99gt is technically a better car and I really like it but it will never replace the 69 when all categories of "why I like a car" are added up. And the 69 was still on it's original, unturned front disks at 125,000 miles. And they were SHOT. >"Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote in message > Putting aside the essentially meaningless [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That gadgetry didnt necessarily make things better, did it, Ashton? Nope. In practical terms, my 1960 corvair did everything my current vehicles do except it didn't have AC. Yeah, it was gutless. But it was pleasant to drive from Phx to LA. >>>> http://www.buriedcar.com/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- I dont know about better looking than a 57 Ford or Chevy its a matter of opinion but definately better looking than a 2007 Toyota Ford or Chevy family car or any other family car made in 2007. This is still remarkable in it's own right.... This is an article about a little piece of automotive history... long before we started seeing cars that look like a half used bar of soap. Aside from the cross posting, I'm all for little notes like this... >> http://www.buriedcar.com/ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff is this an advertisement for Tulsa OK or a cool story about a car? because I went to the site and I'm not seeing nearly enough info about the car. > http://www.buriedcar.com/ > is this an advertisement for Tulsa OK or a cool story about a car? because > I went to the site and I'm not seeing nearly enough info about the car. > >> http://www.buriedcar.com/ I think its a cool public announcement on the exciting festivities to happen when they unearth the car in June after being buried for 50 years. If it is anything like the beautiful '57 red 2D HT I owed, they will not find much except a pile of rust LOL mike >> is this an advertisement for Tulsa OK or a cool story about a car? >> because I went to the site and I'm not seeing nearly enough info about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think its a cool public announcement on the exciting festivities to > happen when they unearth the car in June after being buried for 50 years. and just what exactly does this have to do with a site called alt autos FORD???? > http://www.buriedcar.com/ > and just what exactly does this have to do with a site called alt autos > FORD???? >> http://www.buriedcar.com/ More than your useless cross post. Most of us have owned autos from many of the manufacturers and are car buffs that enjoy the older models. It was of interest to many given the number of positive replies. "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message news:eQPzh.43367$> > More than your useless cross post. Most of us have owned autos from many of > the manufacturers and are car buffs that enjoy the older models. It was of > interest to many given the number of positive replies. The cross posting is unfortunate, but I, for one, enjoy this sort of information, no matter what the name of the newsgroup As previously mentioned, most of us are car buffs, not just Ford, or GM, or Chrysler cheerleaders.\ Will probably be a pile of rust when they lift the lid. > http://www.buriedcar.com/ you can say that again. most of the 57 plymouths fell apart from rust while still on the dealers lot. > Will probably be a pile of rust when they lift the lid. > >> http://www.buriedcar.com/ > you can say that again. most of the 57 plymouths fell apart from rust > while still on the dealers lot. >> Will probably be a pile of rust when they lift the lid. >> >>> http://www.buriedcar.com/ I think it will be intact cuz I think its in an airtight vault. > you can say that again. most of the 57 plymouths fell apart from rust while > still on the dealers lot. I bet they weren't wrapped in that foam stuff I saw around the car. I'm sure the vehicle won't be drivable or even startable without / major/ restoration work, but I'd say it's at least a 50/50 chance the body is in good to great shape. The real question is, why did they put a case of beer in the trunk? That's going to be undrinkable now. O no!! "Christine" back again!!! Playing those old Do Wop music on her radio!!! > http://www.buriedcar.com/ > http://www.buriedcar.com/ Thats awesome.. I didnt realize that was goin to go on, and I only live a couple hours from Tulsa.. LOL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.