Classic cars return from grave
The 1968 Charger: the image of this American muscle car would be difficult to destroy.
...until
now. The 2006 model has had the menacing front end removed, has been given a family sedan back-end, and two extra doors. That'd be "ugly" spelled with an "F".
Someone needs to stop this.
It just looks like everything else Chrysler-Daimler has been putting out lately. I kind of like the lines, actually. They remind me of something out of Gotham City.
The 1968 Charger: the image of this American muscle car would be difficult to destroy.
...until now.
Until now??? Did you miss the 80's?
Until now??? Did you miss the 80's?
:greenface I tired so hard to forget those years.
But, hey, I think the new Mustang has the right spirit in its current form. The front is even kinda sexy.
It's like GM's failure with the Monte Carlo and the Impala. Yeah the new ones have the same name but they certainly aren't Monce Carlos and Impalas.
It's like GM's failure with the Monte Carlo...
The front end of the new Monte Carlo makes me shed a tear like that Indian dude in the 70's commercial about not littering.
It's like GM's failure with the Monte Carlo and the Impala. Yeah the new ones have the same name but they certainly aren't Monce Carlos and Impalas.
Define "failure."
Define "failure."
The new models may share the name and manufacturer of the original, but lack anything resembling the appearance, performance, coolness, room, etc of their elder namesakes.
I think the current Monte Carlo looks better than any of its previous models. The roominess and power plant pale only to the early 70s models--and do we really need that big of a car today?
I thought the new Impala was ugly at first, and no, it doesn't compare to the original 60s versions. But it's a hell of a lot better than the 70s-90s models.
But, hey, I think the new Mustang has the right spirit in its current form. The front is even kinda sexy.
Yeah, it's not bad looking.... from a distance, they need to build the Cobra concept car though. Jim would buy me one I think.... it's all I ever wanted...
The current Monte SS isn't bad looking. Except for the weak front end it's not far off from when they were cool.
I might even let you drive it once or twice
I think the current Monte Carlo looks better than any of its previous models. .
you would. :vomit:
I think the current Monte Carlo looks better than any of its previous models. The roominess and power plant pale only to the early 70s models--and do we really need that big of a car today?
I thought the new Impala was ugly at first, and no, it doesn't compare to the original 60s versions. But it's a hell of a lot better than the 70s-90s models.
My point being that regardless of your opinion of their appearance they are not a Monte Carlo and an Impala, they are an entirely new vehicle suckering in people with branding power.
My point being that regardless of your opinion of their appearance they are not a Monte Carlo and an Impala, they are an entirely new vehicle suckering in people with branding power.
Well, yes and no.
Monte Carlo in 1970: Two-door sporty/semi-luxury car
Monte Carlo in 2004: Two-door sporty/semi-luxury car
Impala in 1970: Two- or four-door full-sized car
Impala in 2004: Four-door full-sized car
It's like a Corvette...the C6 is radically different from the C1, but they're essentially the same car in the end: a two-door roadster.
you would. :vomit:
Don't you have some crappy-ass Sentras to push?
Yeah, it's not bad looking.... from a distance, they need to build the Cobra concept car though. Jim would buy me one I think.... it's all I ever wanted...
I just realized,
that car... like any Cobra... has your name all over it!
Izzat by design?
I just realized, that car... like any Cobra... has your name all over it!
Izzat by design?
jinx's namesake:
With respect to the vehicle picture in post #15 of this thread from radar ...
what IS that?
I think that is easily the sexiest looking vehicle I have seen in quite some time.
I am in love and I have to change my panties.
That motherfucker better be as fast and powerful as it looks sitting still.
With respect to the vehicle picture in post #15 of this thread from radar ...
what IS that?
The same car that Jim posted above (the Ford Shelby GR-1 concept), only with a different paint job (or no paint at all).
I think the current Monte Carlo looks better than any of its previous models. The roominess and power plant pale only to the early 70s models--and do we really need that big of a car today?
I thought the new Impala was ugly at first, and no, it doesn't compare to the original 60s versions. But it's a hell of a lot better than the 70s-90s models.
You're too young and urban to understand. :headshake
I know more about cars than you think, old man. :)
No, you just think you do.
It's like a Corvette...the C6 is radically different from the C1, but they're essentially the same car in the end: a two-door roadster.
You have obviously never drove either of them.
"Essentially the same car in the end"....gimme a fuckin break. A taxi and a Greyhound bus both have a driver and both carry people and their luggage so I guess they are essentially the same thing.
I think the current Monte Carlo looks better than any of its previous models. The roominess and power plant pale only to the early 70s models--and do we really need that big of a car today?
YES! That's what Monte's were about. If you want a politically correct, Consumers Report car, fine. But don't desecrate the good name of Monte Carlo.
You'll never understand the passion and soul of a Corvette or Cobra until you've taken some skin off your knuckles and got grease under your nails. :eyebrow:
No, you gimme a fucking break, Bruce. It's not like you're the foremost expert on cars. I've driven lots of different cars, and while there are certainly some I haven't driven (like a Corvette), that doesn't mean I don't know about them. And...*gasp!*...I HAVE worked on cars in the past! So how about you go feed your bullshit to someone that'll take it, eh?
With respect to the vehicle picture in post #15 of this thread from radar ...
what IS that?
I think that is easily the sexiest looking vehicle I have seen in quite some time.
I am in love and I have to change my panties.
That motherfucker better be as fast and powerful as it looks sitting still.
Here's a few more cool pics of the car. It's a concept car (for now) which means it will come out in a very limited edition and the value will increase over the years.
How's a 605 Horsepower, 390 cubic inch, aluminum-block, V-10 (yes, 10 cylinders), 6.4-liter engine, and 501 foot pounds of torque? It does 0 - 60 in less than 4 seconds and can top out at over 200 mph.
Sexy car, with sexy pics. The last time I saw a car this sexy was the Jaguar XJ220
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/ford_shelby_gr-1.aspNice cars Radar. I'm still partial to the Rally Sport.
That is a beautiful machine, Radar. Even the interior gives the car the right feel just from the pictures. Damn, daddy wants!
The polished aluminum would be a bit... blinding on the road, though. The sun hits that thing just right and everyone on a certain angle of you would end up in the median. :)
I am now one big puddle.
Showing me additional pictures has made things even worse. Man, even the interior looks like the future ... in much the same way as the concept of the future in the 50s and 60s looked soooooo good.
I even love the design of the doors ... taking the idea of the gullwing, which I dearly love, and making it workable in an average parking space.
:drool:
and do we really need that big of a car today?
Yes.
I like big cars.
First car: 1972 Cadilac Fleetwood Brougham
Second car:1982 Nissan Sentra ( I bought it for $500 and kept it long enough to get me from New England back to Louisiana, where I promptly abandoned it)
Third Car: 1982 Monte Carlo LS
Fourth Car: 1972 Chrystler Newport Royale (my favorite ride yet)
Fifth (and present) Car: 1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic
Izzat by design?
Dad's a fan. He really liked Richard Petty too, so I feel like I got lucky there...
Don't get me wrong, TS...I like big cars. My previous car was a 1988 Caprice...I just don't think they're that practical anymore.
So...how gutless is that Caprice you own? And how gutless was that Monte? :)
I owned a 1973 Chrysler New Yorker for a time...it was in incredibly good shape and was a beast on the road (440 V-8), but the gas mileage was just awful (9 mpg in the city). I switched cars with my stepdad after 6 months--took his 1987 Celebrity. Good thing too--the tranny crapped out on the New Yorker later that summer. I wound up selling the Celebrity and buying a 1980 Monte Carlo.
Here's my uncle's Mercury Cougar XR7:
He's the origional owner and has kept the car in pretty dang good condition. Though the origional engine was stolen from a repair shop sometime years ago.
some day when jinx runs out of 'more important' things to spend our money on, Ima gonna get a me one a these here hot rods:
Don't get me wrong, TS...I like big cars. My previous car was a 1988 Caprice...I just don't think they're that practical anymore.
So...how gutless is that Caprice you own? And how gutless was that Monte? :)
I owned a 1973 Chrysler New Yorker for a time...it was in incredibly good shape and was a beast on the road (440 V-8), but the gas mileage was just awful (9 mpg in the city). I switched cars with my stepdad after 6 months--took his 1987 Celebrity. Good thing too--the tranny crapped out on the New Yorker later that summer. I wound up selling the Celebrity and buying a 1980 Monte Carlo.
I like the caprice, it's unfortunate that the last year they made it was in '96. I guess I'll have to go with a crown vic next.
Gutless? I'm not sure what you're asking but the Monte had a 305, and I replaced the 305 in the caprice with a 350.
Having a full size car has payed off so many times in the past that I just can't conceive of not having one.
My first car was a 1968 Pontiac LeMans simular to this one. It had a stock 350 engine and auto transmission. I remember adding a high rise manifold, Holly 4 bbl. carb, Hooker headers and Thrush exhaust. It was a pretty sweet ride at the time!
The original 305? They were alright (I had one in my '76 Camaro), but GM made some crappy engines during that time. My '80 MC had a 229 V-6, which was the most gutless POS...my current Escort could outperform that thing.
Is the 350 a newer one?
That'd be a pretty sweet ride now, 404.
The original 305? They were alright (I had one in my '76 Camaro), but GM made some crappy engines during that time. My '80 MC had a 229 V-6, which was the most gutless POS...my current Escort could outperform that thing.
Is the 350 a newer one?
My mother had a an 85 or so MC with the 4.3 V6. That thing could really pull. It says a lot about an engine when Summit makes a whole section devoted to it.
Yeah, the 350 was a new one, it pulls real nice.
One thing I remember about the 305 in MC was when I had to replace the electronic carburator, it was crazy, $1100. I told them exactly where they could stick that electronic piece of shit. I ordered a Bolly 4 BBL with 200 more CFM of airflow over stock. It could get you going then.
The '88 Caprice I had (350) had a similar carburetor--my stepdad took a look at it and said, "What the fuck?!" Fortunately, I never had any problems with it.
While we're on the subject of vehicles, old versus new, the naming of such, etc, I'd like for the following question to be properly answered in the really annoying commercials I see on TV.
"Hey, that thang got a hemi?"
"
No, actually it doesn't. "
Lee assured me no deception is afoot. The engineers responsible for Chrysler's new engine had better intentions than merely dusting off Hemis in the back of their closet. Early in the research phase, they discovered a combustion chamber that Porsche used for 1965-97 air-cooled 911s offered the ideal starting point for their new design. Porsche's head happened to be a hemi.
Engineers are not about to leave well enough alone so little from the Porsche design made the long trip to what's now called the 5.7-liter Hemi Magnum V-8.
This would be called "false advertising" in my book.
Perhaps the marketing wizards at Chrysler are using the name more to symbolize the power of the original. I agree with the article though...the engine is definitely not a Hemi.
The reason the new magnum V-8 isn’t a magnum is it wouldn’t work today.
The vaunted 426 Hemi was a winner on the race track because the layout allowed the engine to breath at high RPM. It did so with a large overlap of the intake and exhaust valve timing that sent a considerable charge of raw fuel directly into the exhaust. Do not stop at combustion chamber....do not burn. That results in a loss of mileage and would send a catalytic converter into apoplexy.
At lower RPM they didn’t have the power or torque to be quick on the street. Even the pig 440s could keep up with them between lights.
Street Hemi owners were regularly embarrassed by big block Fords that were set up right.
Also, any 427 or square port 396 Chevy was ready to send the Street Hemi back to the Drive-In to impress the car hops that didn’t know any better.
Beware, the sleeper. ;)
