I've got a 60 Chevy Parkwood, but all the 59-60 GM wagons share the same greenhouse, with variations in the body of just how crazy you wanted your fins/trim. These are some sexy wagons, and like most cars from around 59-60 to quote a stoned guy in the lane next to me one night at a stop light "Dude, your car looks like the future!"
Are these the same guys who built the Bat-Pod and didn't let not having any idea how to make it corner stop them from riding it on the street and selling it on ebay?
...and everyone who is complaining about lack of power, and the dead end of OHV technology, remember: 1) this is still early in development
2) it will end up using lots of off the shelf Chevy internal parts
3) the architecture will support up to 3.5l and 350hp, if scaled directly to 1/2 a 7 liter motor
I'm sure if these guys have early successes a 2l, 2.5l or even 3l block will be cast.
2) it will end up using lots of off the shelf Chevy internal parts
3) the architecture will support up to 3.5l and 350hp, if scaled directly to 1/2 a 7 liter motor
I'm sure if these guys have early successes a 2l, 2.5l or even 3l block will be cast.
To me it looks like nothing more than a custom painted 3/4 helmet. Unless it lights up like the ones in the movie, its worth $200. $100 for a plain white 3/4 helmet $100 for some airbrush work. Is it lights up, I'd go as high as $300.
BTW-I have the Cheeseburger Helmet
BTW-I have the Cheeseburger Helmet
I always wondered why Chevy wanted me to tie the baby to an anchor and throw it out the back window.
@FormerlyTheGreatestDriver: That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've had a 2005 ZQ8 sport version of this truck (just like the picture above, but in Pussy Wagon Yellow) and its a great truck. My father had an S10, and this is like a world of difference. No wonder, the s10 dated back to 1980. I have the I5, 5 speed stick, regular cab, regular bed, few options. It weighs about what a Jetta does, has 220hp and as much utility as I'll ever need. It rides like a car, but corners hard enough to be fun to drive.
@Cheeseslap spanks his ACR for being good: You make the bed more than 4' between the bed rails, and balance the 4' x 8' on top of the two wheel humps, and the tailgate lying at half mast. Has no one actually looked at the Canyon/Colorado? The tailgate has 3 option: up, down, half way. The half way position is designed to put the lip of the tailgate at eh same level as the wheel humps, so 4' x 8' fits perfectly. And it even works in the sawed off bed on the 4 door version. Every compact truck should have this feature.
The reason I don't watch NASCAR anymore is the reason I don't watch the Simpsons: I'm reminded of how good it used to be by how awful it is now. Its like visiting your grandma after a stroke.
Okay idea, but base it on the Terrain/Acadia with a 5' bed in the regular cab version, and a 4' bed crew cab version on a stretched wheel base. Fleet version would come with a Eco-tech and FWD, base model for regular fold would have 2.8l V6, and FWD with the top of the line 3.5l VR and AWD. And stick with a normal tailgate with the "half-up" feature form the current Colorado. I would also suggest a bench seat for the fleet and base model.
@kake81: I honestly have no idea why people like the S10 so much and shit on the Colorado/Canyon. They are nearly the same size, and I can't imagine it is just a styling thing.
@Lahjik: I second that. Definitely a Volchero
uhm, did no one even consider if this was "Bullshit, or not?" The book/kindle/iPhone guy seems to not even notice the guys video taping him.
I'd rather have it in the Colorado. In fact I've often though of finding a wrecked Colorado with the V8 for parts, and swap it into my regular cab model. The Silverado weighs in at nearly 5000lbs, and now has the 500hp motor. The Colorado weighs about 3500lbs, and can take the same motor.
For the GM cars, you can pretty much condense the list by saying:
1) All GM Full Sized Cars for 1959-60 (and because of the rush job on the designs, some of the most radically styled cars as well)
2) All GM Full Sized Cars 1971-1976 (The high water mark for really big cars, so big that even the management at the General said, "Okay this is ridiculous, we need to make them smaller" even before the oil embargo)
1) All GM Full Sized Cars for 1959-60 (and because of the rush job on the designs, some of the most radically styled cars as well)
2) All GM Full Sized Cars 1971-1976 (The high water mark for really big cars, so big that even the management at the General said, "Okay this is ridiculous, we need to make them smaller" even before the oil embargo)
Everyone knows some of the best, most fun to drive vehicles are small trucks. Between the X-runner and the Colorado ZQ8 with the V8 you can have as much fun as a Mustang or Camaro, not get as much attention from the police, and help your friend's move.
How come we can't get something like this based on the Chevy Traverse? I own a Colorado, but it looks like they aren't going to update that truck, so why not make a small truck out of the big crossover? That chassis ought to be able to handle a half ton without too much trouble.
The dealers have no incentive to sell a small truck that isn't much smaller than the big trucks, which are more profitable. If the small truck was truly different a Chevy El Travino, or a Ford Flexero, you'd think the economy of scale would allow them to be truly affordable and far enough away from the specs of the big trucks to not cannibalize their own sales. I personally would love a Ranger replacement based on the Flex, in 2 tone, with the stainless tailgate, and the turbo motor.
The dealers have no incentive to sell a small truck that isn't much smaller than the big trucks, which are more profitable. If the small truck was truly different a Chevy El Travino, or a Ford Flexero, you'd think the economy of scale would allow them to be truly affordable and far enough away from the specs of the big trucks to not cannibalize their own sales. I personally would love a Ranger replacement based on the Flex, in 2 tone, with the stainless tailgate, and the turbo motor.
@parkwood60: just looked it up, and you are wrong. In-Out box, no clutch, no gears: "...A V8 engine, fueled by methanol, is connected to the quick-change rear axle by a coupler called an "in-out box". There's no starter motor, and the battery is only large enough to power the ignition system for the evening." So that would be a fail in the fact checking dept. here's a link with some real info on sprint cars: [www.chucko.com]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are wrong about 2 things. 1) Sprint cars can't downshift because they are direct drive from the motor to the rear end with no transmissions. 2) Sprint cars are push started because they do not have a clutch like a normal vehicle, its all or nothing. They can disengage the clutch while running, but cannot progressively engage it to start from a stand still.
The simplicity of these vehicles is one of the things that makes them such awesome race cars. Even awesomer are the unwinged sprint cars which are sideways the entire time. Straightening out in the middle of the front and backstretch for a second before throwing it sideways again for the next corner.
The simplicity of these vehicles is one of the things that makes them such awesome race cars. Even awesomer are the unwinged sprint cars which are sideways the entire time. Straightening out in the middle of the front and backstretch for a second before throwing it sideways again for the next corner.
I've always loved these, but you just never see them for sale. I'm not saying they are collectible, but I put them in the same category as the Ford Lotus Cortina, and oddity that car people in the know will all ways appreciate, and you will always find a home for when it comes time to sell.
You know Ron Paul could still surprise you, if it turns out that Obama is not, in fact a christian American, but a Venusian Presbyterian, and a robot.
