Do expensive cars inspire road rage?

On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:

> Carmen wrote:
> > On 16-Jan-2006, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what kind of
> > > car
> > > you
> > > drive anymore, at least around here. I've driven down a busy
> > > highway in
> > > a shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the most beautiful cars
> > > ever
> > > made)
> > > and nobody even looks at me. So I don't see how merely driving
> > > a
> > > new
> > > Jag would change the attitudes of others toward you... they
> > > probably
> > > don't give a crap. I feel sorry for anyone who spends lots of
> > > $$$
> > > on a
> > > car just so that they can get attention from others... but then
> > > again,
> > > they're good people to buy used cars from
> >
> > I assure you I'd certainly notice such a piece of machinery
> > tooling down the road. :-)
> > DH and I always point out lovely old cars to each other - if
> > they've been chopped and mangled it's to lament the loss.
>
> don't worry, it's not "chopped and mangled," just tastefully
> dechromed and it has big fatty tires on it (argh argh ARGH ARGH ARGH
> <G>)

Big fatty tires, huh? Isn't that a roundabout way of saying you
*tubbed* it <she said accusingly to the Philistine>?
--
Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
physics.
Carmen

Carmen wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> > Carmen wrote:
> > > On 16-Jan-2006, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what kind of
> > > > car
> > > > you
> > > > drive anymore, at least around here. I've driven down a busy
> > > > highway in
> > > > a shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the most beautiful cars
> > > > ever
> > > > made)
> > > > and nobody even looks at me. So I don't see how merely driving
> > > > a
> > > > new
> > > > Jag would change the attitudes of others toward you... they
> > > > probably
> > > > don't give a crap. I feel sorry for anyone who spends lots of
> > > > $$$
> > > > on a
> > > > car just so that they can get attention from others... but then
> > > > again,
> > > > they're good people to buy used cars from
> > >
> > > I assure you I'd certainly notice such a piece of machinery
> > > tooling down the road. :-)
> > > DH and I always point out lovely old cars to each other - if
> > > they've been chopped and mangled it's to lament the loss.
> >
> > don't worry, it's not "chopped and mangled," just tastefully
> > dechromed and it has big fatty tires on it (argh argh ARGH ARGH ARGH
> > <G>)
>
> Big fatty tires, huh? Isn't that a roundabout way of saying you
> *tubbed* it <she said accusingly to the Philistine>?
> --
> Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
> biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
> physics.
> Carmen

Nah, nothing that radical, just 245/60s in the rear and 215/60s in the
front. (would really prefer 215/65s or 215/70s but I mounted the best
two old tires from my Porsche in the interest of protecting the
integrity of my checking account....) They look a heck of a lot better
than the original 6.70-15s...

nate

Harry K wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>>I realize this is probably just a troll but...
>>
>>Robert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what kind of car you
>>>>drive anymore, at least around here. I've driven down a busy highway ina
>>>>shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the most beautiful cars ever made) and
>>>>nobody even looks at me.
>>>
>>>Matters of beauty is a very personal thing. What is a beauty for you might be
>>>ugly for somebody else.
>>
>>Well, the museum of modern art saw fit to display the original '53
>>version of that body style, which is still a very clean, pretty design.
>> Very few people could argue with that. If nothing else, there was
>>clear influence on other timeless designs like the Porsche 911, just to
>>name one.
>>
>>
>>>Also, as a driver of something very different and rare, you look from a
>>>different point of view than a general population. People do notice a nice
>>>and/or expensive car right away. An old clunker it is a different story.
>>
>>Never said it was a "clunker" - sure the interior is a little rough but
>>it looks almost new from the outside.
>>
>>
>>>I would not look at it (55 Stude) either. A Stud or anything else that old on
>>>a road, does not matter how rusty or shiny, it is not worth a look.
>>>For me (and I'm not a teen) anything older than 10 -15 years is just a piece
>>>of junk. Restoring a piece of scrap and putting it back on a road, has no use
>>>or purpose. Handling, polution standards, fuel usage, braking etc is not up
>>>today needs so driving it is just plain stupid.And beeing proud of it is
>>>beyond my understanding.
>>>In my opinion unless it is for a museum, spending money and/or life to restore
>>>an old piece of scrap is just terrible waste of resources.
>>
>>Really? IMHO there's several things that old cars have going for them.
>>
>>1) do you have any idea how much in the way of materials and energy it
>>takes to produce a new vehicle? Ecologically speaking, it's almost
>>always preferable to keep maintaining an older vehicle, assuming it's
>>in good repair, than to buy a new one. Economically, as well.
>>
>>2) Older vehicles are much simpler, and easier for the DIYer to work
>>on. A new car is likely to have electronics that will be obsolete and
>>unavailable in a few decades, thus unless it is a special interest
>>model it will likely be impossible to keep it running once the
>>electronics start to fail.
>>
>>3) Some (not all, but some) older vehicles are "overbuilt" to the point
>>where it is literally possible to keep them running indefinitely with
>>only routine maintenance. That is not true with newer vehicles. Often
>>they are engineered so finely that after x number of years or miles
>>components will start to fail with such regularity that it is not
>>economic to keep repairing them. An older vehicle with a good,
>>high-nickel engine block and robust drivetrain components can be kept
>>going nearly forever, with occasional replacements of things like
>>rings, bearings, and valve guides.
>>
>>just MHO... and certainly getting off the point of my original post
>>which was that at least in my area people seem to be pretty blase and
>>indifferent to what you drive, no matter how unique.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Love to see old cars as long as they are original. Hate to see one
> that has been modified. As to what people drive, I pity anyone who
> buys a car thinking others will envy them, they have a distinct lack of
> personal worth. Back when, up to about 1980s, you could identify a car
> at least as to make a block away, now it is hard to do standing next to
> them, they all look alike with only a few exceptions. Maker A develops
> a good selling design and everybody copies it. The example is the Ford
> Taurus and the "wedge". Within a few years every maker was using the
> "wedge".
>
> Harry K
>

eh, you might or might not like my car. It's had some of the more
egregious bits of trim removed, as I don't think a huge hood ornament or
trunk handle add anything to the esthetics of the car. Drivetrain is
not original but it's all Studebaker. Had to get modern wheels and
tires because I want a car to drive more than look good. 15x7 cop car
wheels all the way around. Can put stock hubcaps on them but I think I
will probably end up with baby moons and trim rings because the cooling
slots look cool (and with four wheel drums they might actually be
useful.) Suspension has been upgraded with HD springs and sway bars
again, because I have no use for a car I can't drive. (never mind the
fact that I can't drive it at the moment; the plan is for it to be a
fully functional piece of transportation that just happens to look cool.)

If you really care, there's some pics on my web site (see .sig)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > N8N wrote:
> >
> >>I realize this is probably just a troll but...
> >>
> >>Robert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what kind of car you
> >>>>drive anymore, at least around here. I've driven down a busy highway ina
> >>>>shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the most beautiful cars ever made) and
> >>>>nobody even looks at me.
> >>>
> >>>Matters of beauty is a very personal thing. What is a beauty for you might be
> >>>ugly for somebody else.
> >>
> >>Well, the museum of modern art saw fit to display the original '53
> >>version of that body style, which is still a very clean, pretty design.
> >> Very few people could argue with that. If nothing else, there was
> >>clear influence on other timeless designs like the Porsche 911, just to
> >>name one.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Also, as a driver of something very different and rare, you look from a
> >>>different point of view than a general population. People do notice a nice
> >>>and/or expensive car right away. An old clunker it is a different story.
> >>
> >>Never said it was a "clunker" - sure the interior is a little rough but
> >>it looks almost new from the outside.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would not look at it (55 Stude) either. A Stud or anything else that old on
> >>>a road, does not matter how rusty or shiny, it is not worth a look.
> >>>For me (and I'm not a teen) anything older than 10 -15 years is just a piece
> >>>of junk. Restoring a piece of scrap and putting it back on a road, has no use
> >>>or purpose. Handling, polution standards, fuel usage, braking etc is not up
> >>>today needs so driving it is just plain stupid.And beeing proud of it is
> >>>beyond my understanding.
> >>>In my opinion unless it is for a museum, spending money and/or life to restore
> >>>an old piece of scrap is just terrible waste of resources.
> >>
> >>Really? IMHO there's several things that old cars have going for them.
> >>
> >>1) do you have any idea how much in the way of materials and energy it
> >>takes to produce a new vehicle? Ecologically speaking, it's almost
> >>always preferable to keep maintaining an older vehicle, assuming it's
> >>in good repair, than to buy a new one. Economically, as well.
> >>
> >>2) Older vehicles are much simpler, and easier for the DIYer to work
> >>on. A new car is likely to have electronics that will be obsolete and
> >>unavailable in a few decades, thus unless it is a special interest
> >>model it will likely be impossible to keep it running once the
> >>electronics start to fail.
> >>
> >>3) Some (not all, but some) older vehicles are "overbuilt" to the point
> >>where it is literally possible to keep them running indefinitely with
> >>only routine maintenance. That is not true with newer vehicles. Often
> >>they are engineered so finely that after x number of years or miles
> >>components will start to fail with such regularity that it is not
> >>economic to keep repairing them. An older vehicle with a good,
> >>high-nickel engine block and robust drivetrain components can be kept
> >>going nearly forever, with occasional replacements of things like
> >>rings, bearings, and valve guides.
> >>
> >>just MHO... and certainly getting off the point of my original post
> >>which was that at least in my area people seem to be pretty blase and
> >>indifferent to what you drive, no matter how unique.
> >>
> >>nate
> >
> >
> > Love to see old cars as long as they are original. Hate to see one
> > that has been modified. As to what people drive, I pity anyone who
> > buys a car thinking others will envy them, they have a distinct lack of
> > personal worth. Back when, up to about 1980s, you could identify a car
> > at least as to make a block away, now it is hard to do standing next to
> > them, they all look alike with only a few exceptions. Maker A develops
> > a good selling design and everybody copies it. The example is the Ford
> > Taurus and the "wedge". Within a few years every maker was using the
> > "wedge".
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> eh, you might or might not like my car. It's had some of the more
> egregious bits of trim removed, as I don't think a huge hood ornament or
> trunk handle add anything to the esthetics of the car. Drivetrain is
> not original but it's all Studebaker. Had to get modern wheels and
> tires because I want a car to drive more than look good. 15x7 cop car
> wheels all the way around. Can put stock hubcaps on them but I think I
> will probably end up with baby moons and trim rings because the cooling
> slots look cool (and with four wheel drums they might actually be
> useful.) Suspension has been upgraded with HD springs and sway bars
> again, because I have no use for a car I can't drive. (never mind the
> fact that I can't drive it at the moment; the plan is for it to be a
> fully functional piece of transportation that just happens to look cool.)
>
> If you really care, there's some pics on my web site (see .sig)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Now that is nice! I am not a purist. My objection is taking a nice
car and chopping/channeling, replace all running gear, motor, tranny
and then calling it a 32 duce. If removing such items improves looks I
am all for it and it obviously does in the case of cars back in those
years. Some of them (Packard springs to mind) seemed to build the body
with the express purpose of having a place to hang chrome. Is that the
original bumper? Somehow I didn't recall the grill surround being so
glaring.

Harry K

In article >, Robert wrote:

> For me (and I'm not a teen) anything older than 10 -15 years is just a piece
> of junk. Restoring a piece of scrap and putting it back on a road, has no use
> or purpose.

Another "consumer" heard from. Unchecked consumptuon for the sake of it.

> Handling, polution standards, fuel usage, braking etc is not up
> today needs so driving it is just plain stupid.And beeing proud of it is
> beyond my understanding.

Really? My 'new' car is 9 years old. The first revision of it's chasis
first appeared in production in 1978. It is more than up to the needs of
today's driving. Even my 33 year old car would be up to task if wasn't
for the incredibly low driver standards and incredibly rude and stupid
things people do. If I upgrade the brakes (to something ordinary in
1975) then even that will go away.

> In my opinion unless it is for a museum, spending money and/or life to restore
> an old piece of scrap is just terrible waste of resources.

You want to talk a waste of resources? New cars in favor of rebuilding
old cars is an incredible waste of resources. While it takes more man
hours to restore or restomod it takes far less resources. Do you have any
understanding how much raw material and energy goes into the construction
of a car? Let me put it this way, the energy it uses to go from place to
place in it's life time might get to that level if it's well cared for
and driven a lot.

The resources used to build a car compared to rebuilding would allow the
old car to be driven for something like a decade to equal the consumption
of replacing it with a new car.

In article .com>, N8N wrote:

> 2) Older vehicles are much simpler, and easier for the DIYer to work
> on. A new car is likely to have electronics that will be obsolete and
> unavailable in a few decades, thus unless it is a special interest
> model it will likely be impossible to keep it running once the
> electronics start to fail.

The electronics and that really don't make it all that much worse. If one
has the skills of being the car's diagnositic computer (like you have to
be with an old car) a service manual is all that is needed to make a
reasonable guess as to what to look at. A multimeter is then the
diagnostic tool of choice. A scanner for the computer is also very useful.

> 3) Some (not all, but some) older vehicles are "overbuilt" to the point
> where it is literally possible to keep them running indefinitely with
> only routine maintenance. That is not true with newer vehicles.

I think it's the same today in that some vehicles are just as overbuilt
running gear wise. Probably fewer in number and proportion now, but they
still exist here and there. But you are correct that the days of the
cheapest car in the line up having a driveline with a 7 main bearing
inline 6 that could run forever is long gone.

> Often
> they are engineered so finely that after x number of years or miles
> components will start to fail with such regularity that it is not
> economic to keep repairing them.

The japanese car implosion? Goes perfectly and then suddenly wierd stuff
is failing like wiper linkages?

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, N8N wrote:
>
> > 2) Older vehicles are much simpler, and easier for the DIYer to work
> > on. A new car is likely to have electronics that will be obsolete and
> > unavailable in a few decades, thus unless it is a special interest
> > model it will likely be impossible to keep it running once the
> > electronics start to fail.
>
> The electronics and that really don't make it all that much worse. If one
> has the skills of being the car's diagnositic computer (like you have to
> be with an old car) a service manual is all that is needed to make a
> reasonable guess as to what to look at. A multimeter is then the
> diagnostic tool of choice. A scanner for the computer is also very useful.

My point was that if/when the computer does fail - and some are known
to be problematic, like the Porsche 944 DME - it will be impossible to
repair/replace unless the problem is obvious like a cracked solder
joint etc.

>
> > 3) Some (not all, but some) older vehicles are "overbuilt" to the point
> > where it is literally possible to keep them running indefinitely with
> > only routine maintenance. That is not true with newer vehicles.
>
> I think it's the same today in that some vehicles are just as overbuilt
> running gear wise. Probably fewer in number and proportion now, but they
> still exist here and there. But you are correct that the days of the
> cheapest car in the line up having a driveline with a 7 main bearing
> inline 6 that could run forever is long gone.
>

Ayup. But the "problem" dates back to the mid-50s - once mfgrs.
figured out that we weren't going to see 100+ octane street gas they
stopped designing engines with "bulletproof" bottom ends and high
nickel blocks. The SBC is a prime example of this, it's "adequate" but
not as "bulletproof" as earlier engines like the Olds Rocket, 1st gen.
Caddy, Studebaker, or AMC.

> > Often
> > they are engineered so finely that after x number of years or miles
> > components will start to fail with such regularity that it is not
> > economic to keep repairing them.
>
> The japanese car implosion? Goes perfectly and then suddenly wierd stuff
> is failing like wiper linkages?

Yup, exactly. Or your "lifetime" tie rod ends, ball joints, and CV
joints all fail at once, along with your "no fluid change required"
automatic transmixer... or in the case of my old BMW, the ludicrously
expensive suspension rubber bits and the non-serviceable, 2-piece
driveshaft...

nate

Harry K wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Harry K wrote:
> > > N8N wrote:
> > >
> > >>I realize this is probably just a troll but...
> > >>
> > >>Robert wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what kind of car you
> > >>>>drive anymore, at least around here. I've driven down a busy highway ina
> > >>>>shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the most beautiful cars ever made) and
> > >>>>nobody even looks at me.
> > >>>
> > >>>Matters of beauty is a very personal thing. What is a beauty for you might be
> > >>>ugly for somebody else.
> > >>
> > >>Well, the museum of modern art saw fit to display the original '53
> > >>version of that body style, which is still a very clean, pretty design.
> > >> Very few people could argue with that. If nothing else, there was
> > >>clear influence on other timeless designs like the Porsche 911, just to
> > >>name one.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Also, as a driver of something very different and rare, you look from a
> > >>>different point of view than a general population. People do notice a nice
> > >>>and/or expensive car right away. An old clunker it is a different story.
> > >>
> > >>Never said it was a "clunker" - sure the interior is a little rough but
> > >>it looks almost new from the outside.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I would not look at it (55 Stude) either. A Stud or anything else that old on
> > >>>a road, does not matter how rusty or shiny, it is not worth a look.
> > >>>For me (and I'm not a teen) anything older than 10 -15 years is just a piece
> > >>>of junk. Restoring a piece of scrap and putting it back on a road, has no use
> > >>>or purpose. Handling, polution standards, fuel usage, braking etc is not up
> > >>>today needs so driving it is just plain stupid.And beeing proud of it is
> > >>>beyond my understanding.
> > >>>In my opinion unless it is for a museum, spending money and/or life to restore
> > >>>an old piece of scrap is just terrible waste of resources.
> > >>
> > >>Really? IMHO there's several things that old cars have going for them.
> > >>
> > >>1) do you have any idea how much in the way of materials and energy it
> > >>takes to produce a new vehicle? Ecologically speaking, it's almost
> > >>always preferable to keep maintaining an older vehicle, assuming it's
> > >>in good repair, than to buy a new one. Economically, as well.
> > >>
> > >>2) Older vehicles are much simpler, and easier for the DIYer to work
> > >>on. A new car is likely to have electronics that will be obsolete and
> > >>unavailable in a few decades, thus unless it is a special interest
> > >>model it will likely be impossible to keep it running once the
> > >>electronics start to fail.
> > >>
> > >>3) Some (not all, but some) older vehicles are "overbuilt" to the point
> > >>where it is literally possible to keep them running indefinitely with
> > >>only routine maintenance. That is not true with newer vehicles. Often
> > >>they are engineered so finely that after x number of years or miles
> > >>components will start to fail with such regularity that it is not
> > >>economic to keep repairing them. An older vehicle with a good,
> > >>high-nickel engine block and robust drivetrain components can be kept
> > >>going nearly forever, with occasional replacements of things like
> > >>rings, bearings, and valve guides.
> > >>
> > >>just MHO... and certainly getting off the point of my original post
> > >>which was that at least in my area people seem to be pretty blase and
> > >>indifferent to what you drive, no matter how unique.
> > >>
> > >>nate
> > >
> > >
> > > Love to see old cars as long as they are original. Hate to see one
> > > that has been modified. As to what people drive, I pity anyone who
> > > buys a car thinking others will envy them, they have a distinct lack of
> > > personal worth. Back when, up to about 1980s, you could identify a car
> > > at least as to make a block away, now it is hard to do standing next to
> > > them, they all look alike with only a few exceptions. Maker A develops
> > > a good selling design and everybody copies it. The example is the Ford
> > > Taurus and the "wedge". Within a few years every maker was using the
> > > "wedge".
> > >
> > > Harry K
> > >
> >
> > eh, you might or might not like my car. It's had some of the more
> > egregious bits of trim removed, as I don't think a huge hood ornament or
> > trunk handle add anything to the esthetics of the car. Drivetrain is
> > not original but it's all Studebaker. Had to get modern wheels and
> > tires because I want a car to drive more than look good. 15x7 cop car
> > wheels all the way around. Can put stock hubcaps on them but I think I
> > will probably end up with baby moons and trim rings because the cooling
> > slots look cool (and with four wheel drums they might actually be
> > useful.) Suspension has been upgraded with HD springs and sway bars
> > again, because I have no use for a car I can't drive. (never mind the
> > fact that I can't drive it at the moment; the plan is for it to be a
> > fully functional piece of transportation that just happens to look cool.)
> >
> > If you really care, there's some pics on my web site (see .sig)
> >
> > nate
> >
> > --
> > replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
>
> Now that is nice! I am not a purist. My objection is taking a nice
> car and chopping/channeling, replace all running gear, motor, tranny
> and then calling it a 32 duce. If removing such items improves looks I
> am all for it and it obviously does in the case of cars back in those
> years. Some of them (Packard springs to mind) seemed to build the body
> with the express purpose of having a place to hang chrome. Is that the
> original bumper? Somehow I didn't recall the grill surround being so
> glaring.
>
> Harry K

You're probably thinking of a '53 or '54, which is much nicer looking
in the front (but is pretty much identical otherwise, except for
smaller bumpers front and rear.) If you look close in my pics you'll
see a slightly more radically modified '53 in the background. Yes, the
chrome fishmouth is original, and replacement bits are rare and pricey


nate

On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:

> Carmen wrote:
> > On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:
> >
> > > Carmen wrote:
> > > > On 16-Jan-2006, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what
> > > > >kind of car you drive anymore, at least around here. I've
> > > >driven down a
> > > > >busy highway in a shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the
> > > >most beautiful
> > > > >cars ever made) and nobody even looks at me. So I don't see
> > > >how merely
> > > > >driving a new Jag would change the attitudes of others toward
> > > >you... they
> > > > > probably don't give a crap. I feel sorry for anyone who
> > > >spends lots
> > > > >of $$$ on a car just so that they can get attention from
> > > >others... but
> > > > >then again, they're good people to buy used cars from
> > > >
> > > > I assure you I'd certainly notice such a piece of machinery
> > > > tooling down the road. :-)
> > > > DH and I always point out lovely old cars to each other - if
> > > > they've been chopped and mangled it's to lament the loss.
> > >
> > > don't worry, it's not "chopped and mangled," just tastefully
> > > dechromed and it has big fatty tires on it (argh argh ARGH ARGH
> > > ARGH <G>)
> >
> > Big fatty tires, huh? Isn't that a roundabout way of saying you
> > *tubbed* it <she said accusingly to the Philistine>?
>
> Nah, nothing that radical, just 245/60s in the rear and 215/60s in
> the front. (would really prefer 215/65s or 215/70s but I mounted
> the
> best two old tires from my Porsche in the interest of protecting the
> integrity of my checking account....) They look a heck of a lot
> better than the original 6.70-15s...

I took a look at your toys. Wow. The '55 is nice, but the '62
Daytona is far and away my favorite. Nice work!
--
Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
physics.
Carmen

Carmen wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> > Carmen wrote:
> > > On 18-Jan-2006, "N8N" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Carmen wrote:
> > > > > On 16-Jan-2006, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't get it... people don't seem to even notice what
> > > > > >kind of car you drive anymore, at least around here. I've
> > > > >driven down a
> > > > > >busy highway in a shiny black '55 Stude coupe (one of the
> > > > >most beautiful
> > > > > >cars ever made) and nobody even looks at me. So I don't see
> > > > >how merely
> > > > > >driving a new Jag would change the attitudes of others toward
> > > > >you... they
> > > > > > probably don't give a crap. I feel sorry for anyone who
> > > > >spends lots
> > > > > >of $$$ on a car just so that they can get attention from
> > > > >others... but
> > > > > >then again, they're good people to buy used cars from
> > > > >
> > > > > I assure you I'd certainly notice such a piece of machinery
> > > > > tooling down the road. :-)
> > > > > DH and I always point out lovely old cars to each other - if
> > > > > they've been chopped and mangled it's to lament the loss.
> > > >
> > > > don't worry, it's not "chopped and mangled," just tastefully
> > > > dechromed and it has big fatty tires on it (argh argh ARGH ARGH
> > > > ARGH <G>)
> > >
> > > Big fatty tires, huh? Isn't that a roundabout way of saying you
> > > *tubbed* it <she said accusingly to the Philistine>?
> >
> > Nah, nothing that radical, just 245/60s in the rear and 215/60s in
> > the front. (would really prefer 215/65s or 215/70s but I mounted
> > the
> > best two old tires from my Porsche in the interest of protecting the
> > integrity of my checking account....) They look a heck of a lot
> > better than the original 6.70-15s...
>
> I took a look at your toys. Wow. The '55 is nice, but the '62
> Daytona is far and away my favorite. Nice work!
> --
> Handy guide to modern science: If it's green or wriggles, it's
> biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it doesn't work, it's
> physics.
> Carmen

It could be yours for a small fee Seriously I have too many cars
and not enough $$ and that will be the one that gets sold, because I
have always wanted an early C-K. I really wanted a '53 or '54,
preferably with a V-8 and 3/OD, but this one was solid, rust free, and
the price was right...

nate