|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 10:34:53 GMT
|
Never mind all the chit chat about love E types Vs hate E types. Love that/ hate it. Let's get to the important thing here. Where's the rest of the show pics bl1300 ? Personally, I kinda like it. However, my favourite other 'top' on a Beetle pan has to be the Allegro estate.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 10:50:18 GMT
|
Well I'm not a great fan of the E Type in it's standard form, for most of the same reasons stated above. I don't mind the whole Beetle-floorpan-under-unlikely-bodyshell thingy. It's a fun concept in general. where it falls down for me is where the original car was much more powerful than a Beetle, even a tuned one. It's like the actual opposite of hot rodding. If it had been a Porsche motor stuck up the back then it would be different kettle of fish. Also the wire mesh "windows" and Weller 8 spokes are a bit too close to banger racing territory for me. This one is a lot better, I think it's mostly BMW oily bits.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
Ratty E type.Deleted
@Deleted
|
Sept 1, 2019 10:57:37 GMT
|
It's like the actual opposite of hot rodding. Yes, so true. It's clot rodding. |
| |
|
|
79cord
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,617
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 11:08:40 GMT
|
Opposite extreme; for those tired of ratty but still happy for unorthodox modification... There's also this Toyota Supra/Soarer 1JZ powered example: speedhunters |
| |
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2019 11:11:00 GMT by 79cord
|
|
|
|
Ratty E type.Deleted
@Deleted
|
Sept 1, 2019 11:29:24 GMT
|
|
Ok so I am not supposed to say anything if I cant say anything nice about what I see BUT its been a long time since I've seen someone lower themselves this far via a set of wheels in order to draw attention to themselves - IMO Ratty E Type = 'look at me I'm different' Nope - just plain bonkers - Again IMO 1JZ powered one above = very, very clever & perfectly executed
|
| |
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2019 11:33:22 GMT by Deleted
|
|
OGDB
Part of things
Posts: 544 
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 12:03:49 GMT
|
|
How awesome! I love it.
I remember seeing a bmw built one before which was pretty cool.
The 2+2 is my personal favourite.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 12:24:08 GMT
|
There are far, far worse versions out there.....   |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 12:30:54 GMT
|
|
That looks like it would pop a rather impressive wheelie.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Ratty E type.Deleted
@Deleted
|
Sept 1, 2019 12:46:40 GMT
|
There are far, far worse versions out there..... hahahah that is genuinely horrible and yet I can't help thinking I'd absolutely love to drive around in it. It's horrible in a 1970's Fantasy Art way that I can't help quite liking. EDIT: I just realised what this reminds me of. It's a grim, humdrum reality version of this piece of 80's sci fi airbursh art on this book cover I had as a kid. I used to love this picture...  |
| |
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2019 13:53:17 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 13:21:53 GMT
|
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 MINI R50/53 front wings/bonnet also do this, in a small E-type way. Perhaps someone could photoshop an E-type bonnet onto a MINI for us, just to see how ridiculous it would look...? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 13:52:27 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. 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. I don't think it hurts to view this design through the prism of time; development of the E-Type started in 1957, i.e. more than 60 years ago, with the production model going on sale in 1961. It had a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds with a 150mph top speed, fast today but supercar performance in that era. What would the average man have driven at the time the E-Type was being crafted? Nothing, most families were not fortunate enough to own a car. If you were lucky enough to drive you might have been behind the wheel of something like this;  I think in comparison the E-Type would have looked like it had just been dropped from a spaceship. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 14:20:59 GMT
|
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. I don't think it hurts to view this design through the prism of time; development of the E-Type started in 1957, i.e. more than 60 years ago, with the production model going on sale in 1961. It had a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds with a 150mph top speed, fast today but supercar performance in that era. What would the average man have driven at the time the E-Type was being crafted? Nothing, most families were not fortunate enough to own a car. If you were lucky enough to drive you might have been behind the wheel of something like this; I think in comparison the E-Type would have looked like it had just been dropped from a spaceship. Agreed. Doesnt stop the majority of motoring journalism always banging on about the e type being the best looking car ever made. The one in the post i like though, but not because of the design on the body. I even don't mind the wellers and mesh windows! |
| |
|
|
bl1300
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,678
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 16:58:44 GMT
|
Well as much as I thought it was awesome I wouldn't want to drive it, these seats looked far from comfortable. As far as the deliberately rusted to be perfectly honest the whole body looked like it had been submerged in salt water for 10 years. The body was paper thin and full of little holes and sharp edges. That body was beyond salvaging for anything else and if you have seen my beetle resto thread you'll know a lot of rust doesn't put me off!  The most ironic bit though was the big banner in the back advertising a professional restoration service! |
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 17:15:04 GMT
|
|
we all know anything can be salvaged with deep enough pockets and gritty determination but that shell certainly looks to be past its prime. i'm fairly certain though if it was an early soft top that it would be a very different story.
|
| |
'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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 17:25:48 GMT
|
Opposite extreme; for those tired of ratty but still happy for unorthodox modification... There's also this Toyota Supra/Soarer 1JZ powered example: speedhuntersThat's more like it. All it needs is to be painted silver and some rust!  |
| |
Still learning...still spending...still breaking things!
|
|
timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 441
Club RR Member Number: 90
|
Ratty E type.timasorus
@timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member 90
|
Sept 1, 2019 17:43:55 GMT
|
|
I’ve never been a fan of cars created just to park at shows. It’s a car at the end of the day that should have a purpose that involves some kind of driving/ movement either on the road or on a track. Look unfinished like so many cars I’ve seen at shows this year.
|
| |
banditos ahoy!
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 18:00:07 GMT
|
|
Imagine the impact the Etype had on the world when it was released in 1961. It may not have the best stance in the world, but not every car is about stance. Personaly I think theyve got great lines, and looks better once the stance is fine tuned. I'm just happy this car exists, to me it looks like the shell had been sitting around for a while, probably as a bare shell, and somebody chose to do something with it, and I doubt he's finnished. I can imagine getting glass for it is going to be a pain. The other option might have been for someone to banger it. Imagine that!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 18:19:43 GMT
|
|
Actually glass or an E type is fairly easy to buy. A friend of the family has one and when his rear window was smashed, not only could he get a replacement off the shelf the insurance covered it just like a normal modern car.
Cost on the other hand is a different ball game and I expect a full set of windows would have been more than the value of the whole shell of the car we're all discussing here.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 18:24:28 GMT
|
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. I don't think it hurts to view this design through the prism of time; development of the E-Type started in 1957, i.e. more than 60 years ago, with the production model going on sale in 1961. It had a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds with a 150mph top speed, fast today but supercar performance in that era. What would the average man have driven at the time the E-Type was being crafted? Nothing, most families were not fortunate enough to own a car. If you were lucky enough to drive you might have been behind the wheel of something like this; I think in comparison the E-Type would have looked like it had just been dropped from a spaceship. I do get that, it's just that the E Type is so nearly right (in my opinion) that I just wish they'd made the extra effort to finish the job off. Especially as 10 years previously, Jaguar had designed one of the most beautiful cars ever with the XK120. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 1, 2019 18:30:58 GMT
|
I do get that, it's just that the E Type is so nearly right (in my opinion) that I just wish they'd made the extra effort to finish the job off. Especially as 10 years previously, Jaguar had designed one of the most beautiful cars ever with the XK120. Exactly. Most of the proportions and styling are just slightly off, that makes the whole thing so hard to look at. Jaguar were much better at saloons until they lost their nerve with the S3 XJ6, let alone the XJ40. |
| |
|
|
|
|
