I was having a lot of trouble coming up with a specific vehicle that exemplified handling without having too much of its own baggage... I almost said handles really, really well and left it at that.
I've never actually driven a Seven.
I was having a lot of trouble coming up with a specific vehicle that exemplified handling without having too much of its own baggage... I almost said handles really, really well and left it at that.
I've never actually driven a Seven.
A. Holy E36 M3, Jack is still writing. Sweet.
B.
rob_lewis wrote: Cool, but I question the cost when I see things like this:
One of my customers just spent $50k for a '65 coupe.
So, um, let me just go get a loan...
ransom wrote: I was having a lot of trouble coming up with a specific vehicle that exemplified handling without having too much of its own baggage... I almost said handles really, really well and left it at that. I've never actually driven a Seven.
I'd have gone with the Lotus Exige myself... and if you want, I'll try to out handle one of those instead in the tube chassis Mustang I build as soon as you drop off the body 
I'll grant you that's a cool school yard to play in, but for 52k I'd rather be scouting slightly used new body Boss302s and GT500s. It might not get you a Boss yet, but it's all over Snake territory.
If I just HAD to have it retro, I'd rather build an AC Cobra
I thought a new Boss 302 was ~43k with certain "gotta have it" options.
But, it's a new car. New cars, by definition, suck. They're new. What fun is that?
If I had the cash.... I would be all over a new old 65. The new cars are just "eh" in so many words.
that's a bargain for what you are getting- well, more for what you are saving than what you are getting.. a mid range resto on an existing car can easily cost $50k with $20k of that being body work.. this way, you are starting out with a brand new body that's built to tighter tolerances with better materials than was available 45 years ago.. of course, it's all stamped out in Taiwan with final assembly i think being done in the USA...
i remember the outrage 5 or so years ago when Dynacorn came out with their first 69 Camaro shells- to listen to some, it was the end of the musclecar hobby and was going to make the values of the real cars plummet. kind of like back in the 70's when the first repro steel 32 Ford and Model T bodies came out... now all these years later and real 69 Camaros are still worth way more than they should be and no one bats an eye when they roll out another new licensed body shell.
Can get 69 camaro's, 68 mustang fastback, 55 chevy, few hot rods (32 ford, etc...) all in "new steel"
I like this stang
http://www.agentfortyseven.com/harbinger/index.html
familytruckster wrote: Can get 69 camaro's, 68 mustang fastback, 55 chevy, few hot rods (32 ford, etc...) all in "new steel" I like this stang http://www.agentfortyseven.com/harbinger/index.html
I saw that at SEMA a couple years ago. Very, very cool.
I've dealt with Dynacorn stuff.
You're better off with the real thing, even if you have to repair it.
The repro steel is thinner than the originals so panel fit can be an issue. 1/16" in a few places can add up to a inch along the whole car.
The parts are usually cranked out on old, worn-out factory tooling so nothing fits without some serious labour.
As the production numbers go up, the workers get less careful with the parts and the fit gets worse and worse.
Even the Brookville roadster bodies are going through this, the early ones fit together like the genuine article. Now, a few years down the line, the fit is worse.
A car that has already been together once in it's life is a far better buy.
Not to mention, I have no personal problem replacing every single square inch of steel in a car but some people get their panties in a twist over moving VIN tags around.
Shawn
I paid $9k for my totally original, rust free fastback. These bodies make sense for many vehicles, but there were so many '64-66 Mustangs made that they are still cheap compared to other cars from that era.
rob_lewis wrote: Cool, but I question the cost when I see things like this: http://austin.craigslist.org/cto/2627856296.html http://austin.craigslist.org/cto/2663578999.html http://sanantonio.craigslist.org/cto/2656099041.html Now, a fastback body makes more sense because they are reaching very high prices. -Rob
Rob:
The sad irony here is that those cars would be financially viable donors for the new shell!
NOHOME wrote:rob_lewis wrote: Cool, but I question the cost when I see things like this: http://austin.craigslist.org/cto/2627856296.html http://austin.craigslist.org/cto/2663578999.html http://sanantonio.craigslist.org/cto/2656099041.html Now, a fastback body makes more sense because they are reaching very high prices. -RobRob: The sad irony here is that those cars would be financially viable donors for the new shell!
And the reality is that none of those need a new body.
You'll need to log in to post.
