$120k 1962 Ford Falcon baby, yeah!

masraum · 05:10 AM

But I think this one may actually be worth it. It's running a 4 cam Indy V-8.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110418919385&viewitem=

And the Popular Hot Rodding article about the beast.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0812phr_1962_ford_falcon/index.html

rammstein · 07-31-2009, 06:00 AM

drool

m21sniper · 07-31-2009, 06:22 AM

That car has got to be utterly devoid of low end power....doesn't it?

masraum · 07-31-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

That car has got to be utterly devoid of low end power....doesn't it?

Probably not much, but then it was enlarged to 276ci. That's got to help a little. Plus the 3.89 rear gears and 5 spd probably ensure that you aren't at low rpms very long.

71T Targa · 07-31-2009, 06:41 AM

It doesn't do anything for me...

legion · 07-31-2009, 06:54 AM

The back window of that car is attrocious!

And it's weird that the exhaus is in the middle and the intake on the outside...

masraum · 07-31-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

The back window of that car is attrocious!

And it's weird that the exhaus is in the middle and the intake on the outside...

Oh, weird, huh, we'll it must be crap then.

Thank goodness there's nothing weird about a 911.

legion · 07:06 AM

I didn't say weird. I said attrocious. That type of curve only works when the rear fenders are part of the picture (they do their own thing here) and the car has a short wheelbase. (The second reason being why the Panamera looks so bad.)

m21sniper · 07-31-2009, 07:10 AM

I agree that the car is atrocious.

masraum · 07-31-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

And it's weird that the exhaus is in the middle and the intake on the outside...

You said the engine was weird.

I agree, I'm not a big fan of the fastback styling. I'm also not a big fan of the similar treatment on the Barracudas, 80's Monte Carlos and early Mustangs.

legion · 07-31-2009, 07:21 AM

See, I think the Mustang fastbacks are great, but they also have a minimal curve to them.

The other two below are ugly.

masraum · 07-31-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I agree that the car is atrocious.

Atrociously awesome, you must have meant, hahahaha.

Still, aesthetics withstanding, the mechanicals and work are very slick. I'd sure as heck spend a few days driving all over the place if someone loaned it to me.

71T Targa · 07-31-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

see, i think the mustang fastbacks are great, but they also have a minimal curve to them.

The other two below are ugly.

+1

71T Targa · 07-31-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masraum

Still, aesthetics withstanding, the mechanicals and work are very slick.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

legion · 07-31-2009, 07:34 AM

And I also think the modern Aston Martins have perfected the fastback look...

URY914 · URY914's Garage

Exhust piped to the front mounted turbo seems a little odd but if it didn't it would be sitting in your lap.

Jim Bremner · 07-31-2009, 08:06 AM

The rear "fastback" does kill the car. I do like the front bumper angled into a spliter.

Sad thing is that he's only driven it 75 miles after spendy $$$$$$ and countless hours on it.

As far as the lack of torque, I'm sure that it makes twice as much as a S2000 !

m21sniper · 07-31-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masraum

You said the engine was weird.

I agree, I'm not a big fan of the fastback styling. I'm also not a big fan of the similar treatment on the Barracudas, 80's Monte Carlos and early Mustangs.

Oh i like fastbacks, the galaxy is just plain hideous though.

Those late 60s early 70s Mach 1 mustangs are among my all time favorite cars.

m21sniper · 07-31-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

As far as the lack of torque, I'm sure that it makes twice as much as a S2000 !

The car probably aslo weighs twice as much as an S2000.

Jim Bremner · 07-31-2009, 08:16 AM

no, I think that the stock falcon weight of that era was around 2,400#

The roll cage and hidious roof should add less than 200# the rear axle is heavy add 50#

The S2000 is a porker! it's 2,800# give or take 75# for early and late cars

My Che'vette is 3,200#s

I would love to hear the engine run!