Vehicles you don't see on the road anymore

[Apparition]

Yes....over the years, attempts at convincing others that my height was an indication of a more evolved human being, potentially on the cusp of an advanced life form, have been met with precisely 100% disregard. How rude.

Ed is about your height and he fit in this F1, gets in near the beginning if you want to see how easy it is

 

[Squatch]

Wait, we're the normal strong healthy specimens. It's the short people who are the freaks.

At 5'7" (I used to be 5'8"), I bought this years ago, hoping to fit in. It didn't work...

 

[5632]

I've seen quite a number of "cars you don't see anymore" since this thread started but I can never get a pic due to driving. Of course it's pretty common to see old cars and trucks here that are original due to our climate, so there are a lot of cars that you don't see anymore that we still see. I see old Beetles nearly every day. On Saturday I saw 3 pristine looking 1950's era Shelby Cobras cruising down Speedway Boulevard here in Tucson.

I don't know a lot about them though. I do remember seeing one burn in a fire near my house when I was about 14 or 15. It had been sitting on blocks outside a repair shop and they couldn't get it moved away from the building in time. Below is a random internet pic.

View attachment 650462

Please feel to correct me but I think they were 260ci.

 

[chili_pepper]

Please feel to correct me but I think they were 260ci.

For Mk I cars, also the 289. I believe the 289 was available throughout, though probably lost popularity in favor of the 427 in the Mk III.

I have a personal preference for the 260/289 cars.

 

[BlueC]

On Saturday I saw 3 pristine looking 1950's era Shelby Cobras cruising down Speedway Boulevard here in Tucson.

I don't know a lot about them though. I do remember seeing one burn in a fire near my house when I was about 14 or 15. It had been sitting on blocks outside a repair shop and they couldn't get it moved away from the building in time.

Most likely what you seen driving, and what burned, were kit cars, not original/vintage cars. In all my years of car shows and being in the car world, I can only remember seeing 2 authentic Shelby Cobras, but I've probably seen a few hundred kit cars, so many in fact I don't even bother looking at them.

For Mk I cars, also the 289. I believe the 289 was available throughout, though probably lost popularity in favor of the 427 in the Mk III.

Does the AC Ace qualify as a MK I? If so, I think they were even available with a I6 in the beginning. Probably not as fun as the Ford powered cars.

 

[Rickyd]

For Mk I cars, also the 289. I believe the 289 was available throughout, though probably lost popularity in favor of the 427 in the Mk III.

I have a personal preference for the 260/289 cars.

62-64 for 260 production. 63-68 for the 289. At least in ford vehicles

 

[chili_pepper]

Does the AC Ace qualify as a MK I?

Suspect a Dino 246 GT has a better chance of qualifying as a Ferrari. That said, I would absolutely have one, both the Ace and the Dino.

I think they were even available with a I6 in the beginning.

I believe all Aces had straight 6's, it's kind of a Brit thing.

 

[Squatch]

All this talk of the 260 and 289ci Fords reminded me of something. I have won more than a few bets that the 260ci Ford was not their smallest version of that engine design. It was, in fact, the 221ci, which was only around in '62 and '63. You wouldn't believe how many "Ford guys" are unaware of that engine. When they hear "221ci", they tend to think of the old flathead V8.

 

[CMBD]

All this talk of the 260 and 289ci Fords reminded me of something. I have won more than a few bets that the 260ci Ford was not their smallest version of that engine design. It was, in fact, the 221ci, which was only around in '62 and '63. You wouldn't believe how many "Ford guys" are unaware of that engine. When they hear "221ci", they tend to think of the old flathead V8.

You wouldnt believe how many Mustang "experts" at cruise nights and car shows embarrass themselves talking about production numbers and other data regarding the "bone stock" 68 GT/CS 390 convertible you brought

 

[ColoJeep]

All this talk of the 260 and 289ci Fords reminded me of something. I have won more than a few bets that the 260ci Ford was not their smallest version of that engine design. It was, in fact, the 221ci, which was only around in '62 and '63. You wouldn't believe how many "Ford guys" are unaware of that engine. When they hear "221ci", they tend to think of the old flathead V8.

Of course the answer everyone , even Ford asked was , WHY . Kinda tells why such a short build life . Maybe it made sense to build a V-8 that small , when Ford also built a 170 c.i.d I-6 . Who knows .

 

[Squatch]

Of course the answer everyone , even Ford asked was , WHY . Kinda tells why such a short build life . Maybe it made sense to build a V-8 that small , when Ford also built a 170 c.i.d I-6 . Who knows .

Ford also had the 144ci inline six starting in 1960. Now there's a small one!

 

[Squatch]

You wouldnt believe how many Mustang "experts" at cruise nights and car shows embarrass themselves talking about production numbers and other data regarding the "bone stock" 68 GT/CS 390 convertible you brought

I was selling a '66 Mustang back in the early '80s. Ran the ad in the Little Nickel (remember those?). A guy calls and asked if it was a "factory V6", because that's what he wanted to restore. I informed him that the '66 Mustang never came with a V6. He hung-up on me.

 

[CMBD]

I was selling a '66 Mustang back in the early '80s. Ran the ad in the Little Nickel (remember those?). A guy calls and asked if it was a "factory V6", because that's what he wanted to restore. I informed him that the '66 Mustang never came with a V6. He hung-up on me.

He hung up on you because he was done with your wrongness

Our GT/CS convertible thing wasn't built to get anything over on anyone. We had a nice GT convertible and a shit 6 cylinder CS. Had absolutely no idea the level of nonsense that would bring out of the woodwork

 

[Squatch]

He hung up on you because he was done with your wrongness

Our GT/CS convertible thing wasn't built to get anything over on anyone. We had a nice GT convertible and a shit 6 cylinder CS. Had absolutely no idea the level of nonsense that would bring out of the woodwork

I never realized that a California Special was available with a six cylinder. I was even more surprised to see that, according to what I could find, the '68 Mustangs still retained the 200ci six, while other models (like the Ranchero, for example) got the new 250ci inline six. I assumed that all the models that had a six-cylinder available to them would have had the new 250ci six.

Learning something new every day!

 

[chili_pepper]

Of course the answer everyone , even Ford asked was , WHY . Kinda tells why such a short build life . Maybe it made sense to build a V-8 that small , when Ford also built a 170 c.i.d I-6 . Who knows .

Just gonna toss these into the discussion for shits and giggles...

While not a consumer market production engine, arguably the longest lived (including variants) and most successful racing engine in history is the Ford/Cosworth DFV, with all of 183 cubes to its name producing over 400 hp. It had to fit the 3 liter formula, so there's your "why" in this particular case.

From 1961 to 1965, engine size was capped at 1.5 liters by the formula. The Lotus 25 won both driver's and constructor's championships in '63 and '65 running a Coventry Climax V8, 92 ci producing 195 hp. Again the "why" being the formula.

 

[ColoJeep]

Just gonna toss these into the discussion for shits and giggles...

While not a consumer market production engine, arguably the longest lived (including variants) and most successful racing engine in history is the Ford/Cosworth DFV, with all of 183 cubes to its name producing over 400 hp. It had to fit the 3 liter formula, so there's your "why" in this particular case.

From 1961 to 1965, engine size was capped at 1.5 liters by the formula. The Lotus 25 won both driver's and constructor's championships in '63 and '65 running a Coventry Climax V8, 92 ci producing 195 hp. Again the "why" being the formula.

But the 221 was larger in bore , stroke and displacement than what the DFV was. This isn't like the Chevy 302 SCCA thing or Ed Cole's boat racing forcing the 55 Chevy to be a 265 c.i.d. Just a thought.

 

[BlueC]

Speaking of small engines, he's a little VW that I spotted last week. I'd say it's the cleanest one I've ever seen. I used to see a crusty one here and there, but they've all disappeared.

 

[chili_pepper]

But the 221 was larger in bore , stroke and displacement than what the DFV was. This isn't like the Chevy 302 SCCA thing or Ed Cole's boat racing forcing the 55 Chevy to be a 265 c.i.d. Just a thought.

I was going to say the DFV was a completely fresh design, but in truth it was based on a four pot. I thought we were just discussing very small displacement V8 engines, and the potential viability thereof. I shall now excuse myself.

 

[chili_pepper]

Speaking of small engines, he's a little VW that I spotted last week. I'd say it's the cleanest one I've ever seen. I used to see a crusty one here and there, but they've all disappeared.

View attachment 650660

GTI wheels on that, no?

 

[Camdenst]

Who remembers the Ford Contour SVT