bl1300
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,678
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 17:07:53 GMT
|
I was at the field of dreams VW festival today admiring so very tasty looking bugs and campers when I heard the familiar sound of a flat 4 coming up behind me. Only when I looked to see what it was coming from it was rather a surprise, how awesome is this creation?   Now it arrived on a trailer but id love to see this made road legal and leave looking as close to that as possible and I normally can't stand rat look! |
| |
Current fleet.
1967 DAF 44
1974 VW Beetle 1303s
1975 Triumph Spitfire MkIV
1988 VW LT45 Beavertail
1998 Volvo V70 2.5
1959 Fordson Dexta
|
|
|
|
scimjim
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 1,503
Club RR Member Number: 8
|
Ratty E type.scimjim
@scimjim
Club Retro Rides Member 8
|
Aug 31, 2019 18:17:02 GMT
|
The number plate’s from a 1955 500cc sunbeam motorbike  |
| |
Last Edit: Aug 31, 2019 18:17:31 GMT by scimjim
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 18:19:22 GMT
|
|
my gabber is well and truly flasted!! the put-put in the back wrong ...wellers wrong...mesh wrong... i think i missed the aim really. with an open piped 6 or 12 in the front however i could really see some potential. 10/10 for either balls or psychosis though.
|
| |
'80 s1 924 turbo..hibernating
'80 golf gli cabriolet...doing impression of a skip
'97 pug 106 commuter...continuing cheapness making me smile!
firm believer in the k.i.s.s and f.i.s.h principles.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 18:37:38 GMT
|
|
I should dislike that muchly. But that is awesome and must be made road legal as soon as possible and entered in concourse of the Etype national rally, if thats a thing.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Ratty E type.accord83
@accord83
Club Retro Rides Member 51
|
Aug 31, 2019 19:25:52 GMT
|
|
I must not be negative, I MUST not be negative, I MUST NOT be negative, I MUST NO.........
Forget it, it's beyond horrific as a vehicle in so many ways.
But as it was trailered, it must be art, as it cannot be a viable vehicle. Therefore no rules apply.
|
| |
74 Mk1 Escort 1360, 1971 Vauxhall Victor SL2000 Estate.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 19:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
| |
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2019 9:03:15 GMT by MkX
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,962
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
Ratty E type.stealthstylz
@stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member 174
|
Aug 31, 2019 19:47:59 GMT
|
|
I'm sure these reactions are the exact reason the owner built it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 19:53:54 GMT
|
The number plate’s from a 1955 500cc sunbeam motorbike MOT sites say 1963 Triumph 500cc (?first registered 1973?) Model T100? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 21:25:13 GMT
|
|
Considering i don't understand the E type hype, not a great looking car in my eyes, i think its great!
Id chop it a bit though.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2019 23:57:20 GMT
|
|
Just to throw many cat's at pigeons, someone's finally made a beetle aesthetically pleasing to the eye!!!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering i don't understand the E type hype, not a great looking car in my eyes, i think its great! Id chop it a bit though. I know what you mean, the 2+2 is the ugly duckling in the range, the 'cabin' is too big. But how could you not love this?  |
| |
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2019 8:19:12 GMT by MkX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering i don't understand the E type hype, not a great looking car in my eyes, i think its great! Id chop it a bit though. I know what you mean, the 2+2 is the ugly duckling in the range, the 'cabin' is too big. But how could you not love this? I don't like any soft tops. I don't think ive ever seen a convertible that looked better than the hard top. With the e type, i dunno, i just don't like them. I don't like the drop in the wing tops as the come towards the scuttle, the roof is a bit high, the screen angle is awkward, the curve of the rear side windows looks wrong. Its like the whole thing is close, but its all slightly wrong to my eyes. My mum had one before i was born and loved it (a 6 cylinder i think). I know i am in a vast minority, but they have just never looked right to me. It's hard to put my finger on exactly why as i think it is pretty close to being nice, but something isnt right. |
| |
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,962
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
Ratty E type.stealthstylz
@stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member 174
|
|
|
I know what you mean, the 2+2 is the ugly duckling in the range, the 'cabin' is too big. But how could you not love this? I don't like any soft tops. I don't think ive ever seen a convertible that looked better than the hard top. With the e type, i dunno, i just don't like them. I don't like the drop in the wing tops as the come towards the scuttle, the roof is a bit high, the screen angle is awkward, the curve of the rear side windows looks wrong. Its like the whole thing is close, but its all slightly wrong to my eyes. My mum had one before i was born and loved it (a 6 cylinder i think). I know i am in a vast minority, but they have just never looked right to me. It's hard to put my finger on exactly why as i think it is pretty close to being nice, but something isnt right. I'm also in that minority. I think it's because the wheel arches are so low on the body and the wheels are so inset, always looked a bit goofy as if they're sat on a jack. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like any soft tops. I don't think ive ever seen a convertible that looked better than the hard top. The only car I can think of which is difficult to compare is the 1950s Merc 300SL gull-wing and the convertible. I think they're both gorgeous! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to the thread, I'm waiting on a Rolls Royce with beetle engine in next.
This E-type is a bit of fun - sure it's probably worth more as spares than in its current state, and the bodywork seems to have been freshly ratted? I would have prefered to see the original paintwork, whatever that may have been.
|
| |
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,790
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
Ratty E type.Dez
@dez
Club Retro Rides Member 34
|
|
|
|
Rolls Royce on a beetle pan has already been done.
Tbh I’m a bit bored of beetle panned things now. The first few where cool/interesting/different, now they’re just same old, same old.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like any soft tops. I don't think ive ever seen a convertible that looked better than the hard top. With the e type, i dunno, i just don't like them. I don't like the drop in the wing tops as the come towards the scuttle, the roof is a bit high, the screen angle is awkward, the curve of the rear side windows looks wrong. Its like the whole thing is close, but its all slightly wrong to my eyes. My mum had one before i was born and loved it (a 6 cylinder i think). I know i am in a vast minority, but they have just never looked right to me. It's hard to put my finger on exactly why as i think it is pretty close to being nice, but something isnt right. I'm also in that minority. I think it's because the wheel arches are so low on the body and the wheels are so inset, always looked a bit goofy as if they're sat on a jack. Add me to the list; I agree about the wheel arches, the proportion of the body to the sills is wrong, the sills wrap under the car too quickly, and the back panel needs to be deeper. And the exhausts poking up and out are hideous. The convertible is even worse because the windscreen just looks like a last minue add-on. |
| |
|
|
foe
Part of things
Posts: 127
|
|
|
|
|
It's different, individual and definitely makes you think about what you would do to it, if it was yours!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 10:02:53 GMT
|
I'm also in that minority. I think it's because the wheel arches are so low on the body and the wheels are so inset, always looked a bit goofy as if they're sat on a jack. They do have a narrow wheelbase, particularly the most sought after early cars. It's better than the Mk 1 Jag which had a different wheelbase on the front and back. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 10:18:30 GMT
|
|
Also LHD, so an import?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
