Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:19 am
Neither of them looks very fast, no offense...
Page 3 of 4
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:03 am
Have a thing for sharp angles, I see?
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:20 am
They have this nice old-school ish look.
A reminder from an age when cars didn't look like aerodynamic turds and had the good solid brick feel to them, without actually being totally aerodynamically inept like today's actual bricks.
Sharp angles are nice (at least IMO).
A reminder from an age when cars didn't look like aerodynamic turds and had the good solid brick feel to them, without actually being totally aerodynamically inept like today's actual bricks.
Sharp angles are nice (at least IMO).
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:37 am
I'll stick with the curves myself.
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:50 am
Although, sometimes the lack of safety equipment and emissions regulations means 80s models - like a Golf GTi - are actually much faster (0-60 anyways) than their modern counterpart. But no CD player, natch.Matthew wrote:Neither of them looks very fast, no offense...
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:16 pm
Curves for me, tyvm. I'm happy with my '97 thunderbird.
And it also has no CD player
And it also has no CD player
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:33 pm
Wait, one of these;Matthew wrote:Curves for me, tyvm. I'm happy with my '97 thunderbird.
And it also has no CD player
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:06 pm
Sort of. That's the standard package, mine is the LX package. You can tell because it has a decklid spoiler.
Mind doesn't have racing bucket seats though But it is arrest-me-red.
Mind doesn't have racing bucket seats though
But it is arrest-me-red.Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:05 pm
Hmm. Not my cup of tea, to be honest - reminds me of a 90s Ford Escort somewhat.
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:14 pm
Thunderbird is lower and sportier-looking, and nicer inside I think (but I can't prove that part).
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:29 pm
I roll in one of those myself, and this definitely looks somewhat sportier.aldo wrote:Hmm. Not my cup of tea, to be honest - reminds me of a 90s Ford Escort somewhat.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:25 am
Yeah, though they are 20 years oldMatthew wrote:Neither of them looks very fast, no offense...
The Bluebird has no sporting aspirations whatsoever. It's a nice simple, sturdy, comfy car. Taxi drivers use to love them back in the day.
I hoped it would be a bit grim inside but it has loads of kit, including my CD player.
The Silvia was a handy car back in the 1980s but not so fast compaired to moderns. It's rear wheel drive, has independent rear suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes and a 1.8 tubo engine which was a decent spec back then.
Alot of the stuff from the later S13 and S14 200SX/Silvia swaps over, including the 16v turbo 1.8 engine, brakes and suspension. So it has alot of potentional.
I like the T/bird. lol my bluey is an LX too!
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:39 am
High five for T-bird owners!
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:51 am
What's the 0-62 (mph)? IIRC they tend to be relatively low (fast) on US cars, more of an emphasis on sheer grunt over emissions/efficiency I think.Matthew wrote:Thunderbird is lower and sportier-looking, and nicer inside I think (but I can't prove that part).
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:11 pm
I'm not sure, I think it's around 8 seconds, but I've never been able to find a very confident-sounding answer online