Camoes posted:

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but my knowledge in cars doesn't go past F1. What is the name of this car? It's the most beautiful car I've ever seen.

angryhampster posted:

Classic Jags are seriously amazing machines. Here's a modern day recreation from a company called Eagle:



Old Jag engines also sounded *wonderful*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3IbF5bJSEU&t=2533s


That is the best VBD episode. Miss that show.

Collateral Damage posted:

Roadkill just posted this on Facebook.

VikingSkull posted:

The couple in the background really sell the image.

e- also, holy gently caress, is that outside the USA?!

angryhampster posted:

Classic Jags are seriously amazing machines. Here's a modern day recreation from a company called Eagle:

yyyyyy posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbhEu60jrw

crank the volume

relative_q posted:

I also own an Indy 500 record released by Van Kamp's Pork and Beans, but honestly I don't think I've ever gotten around to listening to it; I just bought it because who wouldn't buy a race car record put out by pork and beans?

West SAAB Story posted:

How would you know the brapping is actually from the cars?

BlackMK4 posted:

Venezuela or Columbia

parrhesia posted:

Nope. That's Germany. The license plate is German and that website he advertises on his windshield is for a gold plating company in Germany, too. If you want your Harley gold plated, give them a call.

e: This is also 80s as gently caress and I'm immediately reminded of Manta, Manta in terms of aesthetic. Except somehow even tackier.

Pham Nuwen posted:

I look at abortions like the PT Cruiser that were trying to evoke a certain era of cars, and wonder why they didn't just build the frame+body of an actual Chrysler Airstream or something and stick a modern engine in. Are there regulatory requirements that make this lovely? That Jaaaaaaaaaag looks pretty good, why can't we have mass-produced replicas of other classic cars?

Vigo327 posted:

Old cars don't need the government's help to be lovely, they just inherently are. I can understand the opinion of many on old cars they never actually had to deal with, but as a mechanic ive driven and worked on a lot of old cars and putting a modern engine in them doesn't come close to making them desirable to a mainstream buyer. There are people out there willing to pay new-car money to restomod old cars but i dont think there are enough people willing to do that to prop up a mass-production run of new-old cars, even if you could legally sell such a thing. I think anyone in a position to spend $20k putting a new motor into an old heap can do so already, and for most of them the process is part of the fun.

But really, old cars mostly suck at everything. They have great novelty value and when considered in that context can be 'worth it', but if you're just being objective you will get into any (normal-ish) old car and just go "Wow. This is a piece of crap."

Pham Nuwen posted:

Well, I prefer to drive my 62 Studebaker over the 2010 Honda, but I won't pretend it's more reliable or safer or anything.

I'm just saying, for example, the PT Loser was supposed to be like those old cars. Would it have been totally impossible for them to take the old frame and body, or even just the body, and stick some combination of modern engine and transmission and interior inside? Could it really be worse than what they ended up doing?

Collateral Damage posted:

Collateral Damage posted:

Roadkill just posted this on Facebook.

Collateral Damage posted:

Roadkill just posted this on Facebook.

Q_res posted:

The best part of this is that, unless he did a conversion, this thing is FWD.

Slavvy posted:

All of this makes the whole idea a hopelessly unprofitable venture. It works for the cottage industry because there is a subset of people who are very wealthy and want an actual genuine old car without the hassle of it breaking down every ten minutes or being hopelessly slow compared to a corolla.

Slavvy posted:

It would be extremely costly. Modern factories are geared to make modern cars; they would have to put together tooling and production facilities purely for making a niche market car that they can't objectively sell as being good in any way besides nostalgia factor. Plus modern car buyers want a modern car; noone who waxes lyrical about the good ol' days actually remembers what it was like to drive those garbage cars.

A new engine/drivetrain doesn't make a car feel new, modern suspension and body design is lightyears ahead of even two decades ago, let alone fifty years ago. The current target market for what you're visualising is stuff like the new mustang/challenger/camaro. Extremely retro-styled cars which attempt to capture the bullshit imaginary 'spirit' of cars the owners have never driven, without actually making people leave the cosseting blanket of modern technology.

All of this makes the whole idea a hopelessly unprofitable venture. It works for the cottage industry because there is a subset of people who are very wealthy and want an actual genuine old car without the hassle of it breaking down every ten minutes or being hopelessly slow compared to a corolla.

Leperflesh posted:

This is all totally true. But also, there are modern crash safety standards that such a thing would not be able to meet, and modern fuel economy rules that such a car would gently caress up for the carmaker (e.g., CAFE mandates fleet average MPGs that a body-on-frame beast would depress). Mostly the safety thing though. Even a lovely PT Cruiser is just massively, massively safer than any car sold in the US in, say, 1960.

Vigo327 posted:

I think people fundamentally don't understand that the purpose of the car crumpling up six ways to sunday is to control the deceleration of the occupants. A car that can run into something at 40mph and look perfect afterward is extremely counterproductive to occupant safety.

Falken posted:

Here's a Porsche 944.





Built for time attack, which explains the aggressive aero. it used to be a 2.5L 8v turbo with 260hp and 1200 kg. This version is 3.1L, 505hp, 1140 kg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCXkgI7VPsc

Vigo327 posted:

I saw a 'How it's Made' on the Morgan Aero and i was flabbergasted by the old-school craftsmanship and construction techniques used to put one together. I couldn't believe how totally UN-automated it was. I ended up thinking it was very cool, and a very good reason to buy one if you're in a position to do so and actually place value on the idea of human craftsmanship of the old-school, hands-on variety. Cars have been my main hobby and passion for all of my adult life and i've put in a 10yr career as a professional tech, and yet i begrudgingly realize how really narrowly skilled i am in the context of something like that.

Pham Nuwen posted:

I'd rather have the car remain perfectly un-crumpled than have the front half of the car shoved through my face because the passenger compartment crumpled.

Vigo327 posted:

Stay out of old cars, then.

Pham Nuwen posted:

Too late. I ride motorcycles too. I'm not going to be so risk-averse that I refuse to enjoy anything.

11BulletCatcher posted:

But, 'MURICAN IRON!


Seriously, I love my 63 Impala but I feel like it's every 10 seconds that someone says "That's way tougher than that plastic crap they make now. You must feel safe." I then point at the deep dent and crease in my quarter panel and say "See that? 5 MPH. 5MPH crushed my cars poo poo in." I try to explain to these people that they are only Steel and empty air. But they just look at me funny and walk away.

I also point out how in the advent of a head-on collision I will, if not ejected, likely be decapitated via the top edge where the windshield meets the roof of the car. Or, you know, the steering column that is 6 feet of solid iron, plus all metal dash.

Funzo posted:

Not strictly automotive, but I thought some people here might enjoy this one. I parked next to it at dinner today. Hard to see, but the rear tire was the width of that entire rear fender.